- (1.) These appeals filed under Section 35-L of the central Excises and Salt act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, new Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 31/1/1997.
(2.) We have heard Shri Ravinder Narain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals. Under Section 35-L of the Act an appeal lies to this court only in two situations mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). Admittedly, clause (a) is not applicable, Shri Ravinder Narain has invoked clause (b) of Section 35-L which reads as follows: "35-L.(b) any order passed by the Appellate tribunal relating, 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. "
(3.) A perusal of the said clause shows that an appeal lies to this court against an order passed by the tribunal relating to the determination of any question relating to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. Shri Ravinder Narain has submitted that the impugned order passed by the tribunal relates to the value of goods. The said question relating to value of goods has, however, arisen on the claims for refund of excise duty submitted by the appellant before the Assistantcollector. In our opinion, the question of valuation of goods in the context of a claim for refund cannot be regarded as a question having relation to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The assessment had been completed in the present case and assessment orders had already been passed. It is only when the goods were returned, the question of refund arose. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Shri Ravinder narain that the appeals are maintainable under clause (b) of Section 35-L of the Act and the appeals are liable to be dismissed.;