IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 1st day of September, 2010: '»j PRESENT « THE HoN'BLE MR. JIESTECE THE HON'BLE MR.'§Ifi3*s,f_r1cE~H_.s.., No'."i :§'5 q;" fiaog BETWEEN: Cornzviaissioiizéi of exitral. _ Excise', Ba11ga10fe:-:AI1I.Tb Commissionerxte; .Q11ée13S « Road Banga1oi"e'_~E':6O O01: " _ ...Appe11ant [B3_r $ri Venkata Reddy, Advocate) Eflterior Solutions (P) Ltd., b§p.'22, _r,;ro?:_md Floor Opp. I%iot€:1"'Harsha Venkataswamy Naidu Road r ' AA Sh'ivajVi" Nagar .I3ah_.galore -- 560 051 ...Respondent
[By Sri K S Ravi Shankar, Advocate}
x/
V ” «marke’tab1e”.A
This CEA filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 arising out of order dated 24/O6/2008’_p”assed in
Final Order No.916/2008 praying to (i) to.«”‘de’eid-ea the
substantial question of law stated therein. (ii}~~-set.__aside..Athe
CESTAT, South Zone Bench, Bangalorefin ‘AfIi3,’E11~ Hszrder
fiNo916/2008 damn 244K}2008,in Appggiixxeyzse/zoos,
DI’0ducedatAnneXu1’e–A.
This, CEA coming one. for ‘W; hearing u°f.day,.””e ”
N. KUMAR J delivered the following}
ygunsnekr
The substantial: .quAe’-s_.tic~{nvV c£;;1,a’v.¢, that is raised for
consideration-‘inathis”ap’pe_a1 relates to whether the impugned
goods areexcisabtleior. ‘Even if they are excisable. whether
they “are ehficempted and whether those impugned goods are
V. all these questions fall Within the phrase
“relating? to detennination of the rate of duty payable and the
of the goods, the appeai lies to the Supreme Court under
L/i
Section 35L{b] of the Act and not to this Court under Section
35G of the Act.
3. In that View of the matter, _in…the light’ ofjofhhh
this Court in the case of ”
EXCISE Vs. M/s V _
PETROCI-EMICALS LTD” holcfefihat appeal is
not maintainable. u to the revenue to
approach the 351.03) of the Act.
No costs.
Sdli
§’§’d§5
Sdfgé
Iudg7°é: