S.C.R.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1 versus M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 05-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1
v.
M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 10083 of  2011)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Customs Act, 1962:
ss. 130 and 130E - Appeal against orders passed by Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) - Whether
appeal would lie u/s. 130 before High Court or u/s. 130E before
Supreme Court, in the facts of the present case  - Held: Appeal to
Supreme Court against the order of CESTAT would lie only if any
question having relation to the rate of duty is involved in the appeal
or if it relates to value of goods for the purpose of assessment or
classification of goods or whether the goods were covered by
exemption notification - In all other cases appeal would lie before
High Court - The question to be determined in the present appeal
was neither related to rate of duty nor to valuation of goods nor
classification of goods nor coverage under the exemption
notification - The appeals also did not involve any question of law
of general public importance applicable to a class or category of
assesses as a whole - Therefore, in the present case, the appeals
were maintainable u/s. 130 before High Court and would not lie
u/s. 130E to Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Upon a conjoint reading of ss. 130 and 130E of
Customs Act, 1962, it could be seen that an appeal shall lie to
the High Court u/s. 130 against every order passed in appeal
by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the
case involves a substantial question of law. The only exception
carved out is that an appeal shall lie before this Court u/s. 130E
and shall not lie before the High Court against the order relating,
amongst other things, to the determination of any question
having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of
goods for the purposes of assessment. Thus, only if any question
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 618
618
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
having relation to the rate of duty is involved in an appeal or if
it relates to value of goods for the purpose of assessment, the
appeal would lie to this Court and in all other cases it would lie
before the High Court. [Para 9 and 10] [625-A-C]
2. The Legislature has carved out only following
categories of cases to which it has intended to give a special
treatment of providing an appeal directly to this court. “(i)
determination of a question relating to a rate of duty; (ii)
determination of a question relating to the valuation of goods
for the purpose of assessment; (iii) determination of a question
relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether
or not they are covered by an exemption notification; and (iv)
whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should
be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that
the said Act provides for.” [Para 16] [629-D-F]
3. In the present case, it could clearly be seen that the only
question that is involved is whether the assessee had violated
the conditions of the exemption notification by not utilizing the
imported materials for manufacturing of the declared final product
and was, therefore, liable for payment of duty, interest and
penalty. Neither any question with regard to determination of rate
of duty arises nor a question relating to valuation of goods for
the purposes of assessment arises in the present case. The
appeals also do not involve determination of any question
relating to the classification of goods, nor do they involve the
question as to whether they are covered by the exemption
notification or not. Undisputedly, the goods are covered by the
said notification. The only question is as to whether the assessee
has breached the conditions which are imposed by the
notification for getting exemption from payment of the customs
duty or not. The appeals do not involve any question of law of
general public importance which would be applicable to a class
or category of assessees as a whole. The question is purely
inter-se between the parties and is required to be adjudicated
upon the facts available. Therefore, the High Court was not
justified in holding that the appeals are not maintainable under
Section 130 of the Customs Act but are tenable before this Court
under Section 130E of the Customs Act. [Paras 17 and 18] [629-
G-H; 630-A-C]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1 v.
M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.