CEA No.10 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.10 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: March 22, 2010 M/S PVM ENTERPRISES(P) LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. H.P.S. GHUMAN, SR.STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of CEA No.10 of 2010, CEA Nos.11 to 14 of 2010 and CEA Nos.17 to 36 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts arise in these appeals. However, the facts are being taken from CEA No.10 of 2010. The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act (for short 'the Act') impugning the order dated 11- 12.11.2009 (Annexure A-4), whereby the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') has upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority and has held that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification. The short question that arises in the present appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No.14/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. The aforementioned question was decided against the assessee CEA No.10 of 2010 -2- by all the Central Excise Authorities including the Tribunal. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Act. Counsel for the Revenue has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal. Counsel for the Revenue has argued that the question, whether the assessee is covered by the Exemption Notification or not, relates to rate of duty and for determination of such a question, appeal would not lie to the High Court under Section 35G of the Act. But the only remedy available to the assessee would be to file appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. A.S.T. Paper Mills Ltd., reported as 2008(227) ELT 189 (P&H) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula vs. Special Machine, reported as 2009(242) ELT 330 (P&H), wherein it has been held that under such circumstances, the only remedy available to a party would be to file an appeal under Section 35L of the Act before the Supreme Court. As a sequel to the above discussion, we are of the view that the present appeals are not maintainable. As the question, whether the assessee is covered by the Exemption Notification or not, is involved, hence, the only remedy available to the assessee-appellant is to file appeal before the Supreme Court under Clause (b) of Section 35L of the Act, if so advised. The Registry is directed to return these appeals to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 22, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE