Page 182 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

228 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

able in other States. Thus, the decision of the Apex Court in Motorola
(India) Ltd. (supra) has specifically referred to the fact, that the issue
before it does not have an all India impact. This as it does not deal
with issue of taxability/excisability for the purpose of assessment.
(c) The appellant Revenue also relies upon the decision of this Court in
Greatship (India) Ltd. (supra) and of the Supreme Court in Navin
Chemicals (supra) to contend that an appeal arising from an order
dealing with taxability/excisability would only be before this High
Court and not the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We find that the deci-
sion in Greatship (India) Ltd. (supra) of this Court is not applicable to
the present facts, as it itself records in Paragraphs 24 and 28 thereof
that there was no dispute before it that the services are taxable.
Thus, the objection of the Revenue (respondent before it) that this
Court does not have jurisdiction, was negatived. So far as reliance
upon the decision of the Apex Court in Navin Chemicals (supra) is
concerned, we note that in Paragraph 11 thereof, the Supreme Court
has observed as under :-
“11. It will be seen that sub-section (5) uses the said expression
‘determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty
or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment’ and the Ex-
planation thereto provides a definition of it ‘for the purpose of this
sub-section’. The Explanation says that the expression includes the
determination of a question relating to the rate of duty; to the valua-
tion of goods for purposes of assessment; to the classification of
goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an
exemption notification; and whether the value of goods for purpos-
es of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to
certain matters that the said Act, provides for. Although this Expla-
nation expressly confines the definition of the said expression to
sub-section (5) of Section 129D, it is proper that the said expression
used in the other parts of the said Act should be interpreted similar-
ly. The statutory definition accords with the meaning we have giv-
en to the said expression above. Questions relating to the rate of du-
ty and to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment are
questions that squarely fall within the meaning of the said expres-
sion. A dispute as to the classification of goods and as to whether or not
they are covered by an exemption notification relates directly and
proximately to the rate of duty applicable thereto for purposes of assess-
ment. Whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment is re-
quired to be increased or decreased is a question that relates direct-
ly and proximately to the value of goods for purposes of assess-
ment. The statutory definition of the said expression indicates that it
has to be read to limit its application to cases where, for the purpos-
es of assessment, questions arise directly and proximatley as to the
rate of duty or the value of the goods.”
(emphasis supplied)
From the above, it is clear that the Apex Court noted that the classifica-
tion of goods under the Tariff for the purpose of determining the rate of
duty would be a question having relation to the rate of duty Thus, the
above observations by the Apex Court would support the view that tax-
ability/excisability is not appealable before this Court, as decision on the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  198