IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik. ... Appellant. V/s. Manoj Jain and others. ... Respondents. WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Goel Packaging Industries Ltd. and others. ... Respondents. A.S.Rao for the for the appellant. Madhur Baya for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 27th January 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant revenue and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused appeals. 2. These appeals were admitted vide order dated 24th April, 2006 to consider the following question of law finding it to be a substantial question of law: Whether the respondents have contravened the provisions of Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act by filing the shipping bills for export in the month of October/November, 2002 under claim of DEPB by over invoicing the goods in respect of aromatic chemicals, jacguard cards raw materials and also balance sheets by incorporating wrong figures? 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides for appeal to the High Court, has raised preliminary objection challenging maintainability of the appeals before this Court. Sub-section (1) of section 130 reads as under: 130. Appeal to High Court.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. 4. Dissection of the aforesaid section would show that appeal lies to the High Court from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, if it is not an order relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment, that took, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is, thus, clear that no appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Tribunal, if it relates to the value of the goods for the purposes of valuation. 5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid provision, if we turn to the question of law on which these appeals were admitted, it is clear that the said question sought to be raised is pregnant with the issue relating to the over invoicing of goods in respect of aromatic chemicals, jacguard cards and raw materials. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is liable to be sustained. Both appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed as not maintainable leaving appellant to its remedy. 6. It is needless to mention that this order shall not come in the way of the appellant- Revenue, if the Revenue decide to challenge the impugned order in proper forum. All rival contentions on merits are kept open since appeals are being dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents leading to absence of jurisdiction in favour of this Court. 7. In the result, both appeals are dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction with liberty reserved in favour of the appellant, with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)