AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the tribunal 2007 (118) ECC 313 ; which has held that there is no corroborative evidence to sustain the charges of clandestine removal and therefore, the demand cannot be sustained.
Therefore, the substantial question of law if at all it arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the revenue was justified in demanding the duty on the ground of clandestine removal of goods. The said determination to be done by this Court falls squarely within the phrase "among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment". The said question is outside the purview of an appeal or a reference to this Court u/s 35H of the Act earlier. It falls squarely within 35L of the Act to be determined by the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer a statutory appeal u/s 35L of the Act.