1. With the consent of the parties, the appeal involving the issue for consideration is heard finally. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the CESTAT was justified in law in refusing to admit the appeal ignoring that the issue related to valuation of goods and therefore, discretion to refuse to admit the appeal under sub-section (1) of Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available under the law?”

This appeal has been directed against the order dated 15.11.17 passed by CESTAT whereby the appeal of the appellant under Section 35B has been dismissed in limine invoking proviso II of Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act.

2. Counsel for the appellant raised a short and pointed submission that in the instant case, as the dispute relates to valuation of goods for the purposes of assessment, the discretion to refuse to admit the appeal on the ground of duty involved being less than Rs. 2,00,000/- was not available. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the matter of Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai, 2016 (336) ELT 25 (Mad.).

3. In reply, counsel for the reve