Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. Colabawalla, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ
CG Power and Industrial Solutions Pvt Ltd formerly known as Crompton Greaves Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – Respondent
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Chitale, Prathmesh Bhosle
For the Respondents: None
The court admitted the appeal to determine if the suo-moto quantification of differential value for excise duty is valid when the customer disputes the value and no agreement exists between the parties.
Headnote:The appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging a Final Order dated 12th March, 2024. The matter pertains to the suo-moto quantification of the differential value of three transformers and the subsequent demand for excise duty, which was disputed by the customer due to the absence of an agreement regarding the differential value. The court found that the revised question of law raised by the appellant is arguable. The central issue is whether the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise erred in suo-moto quantifying the differential value and demanding excise duty despite the customer disputing the quantification and the lack of a mutual agreement on said value. The court reasoned that the question raised is substantial and warrants consideration. Hence, the above Appeal is admitted only on the revised question of law
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. admission of appeal based on an arguable substantial question of law regarding the validity of suo-moto quantification of differential value for excise duty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural directions for the issuance of notice and summoning of records following the admission of the appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
P. C.
1. The above Appeal is filed under the provision of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the Final Order dated 12th March, 2024 passed in Excise Appeal No. 88660 of 2013 passed by the Customs and Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench.
2. According to the Appellant, the Impugned Order gives rise to five substantial questions of law, as more particularly set out in paragraph 4 of the Appeal. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has today tendered a revised question of law and has submitted that only this question needs consideration in the above Appeal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, we find that arguable questions are raised. Hence, the above Appeal is admitted only on the revised question of law, which reads thus :
“(i) Whether, in the facts of the case, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise erred in suo-moto quantifying the differential value of the 3 transformers to be Rs.1,21,70,606/- and demand excise duty upon the same of Rs.12,53,572/-inspite of the fact that the Appellants' Customer SPML Infra Ltd. had disputed the said quantification and had not paid the said differential value as there was no agreement between the Appellants and the said SPML Infra Ltd. about the differential value?”
4. The Registry is directed to issue Notice after admission to the Respondent returnable on 27th August, 2026.
5. The Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court to ensure that the original record in relation to this Appeal is summoned from the Tribunal and offered for inspection of the parties. This paper book is treated sufficient for the purpose of admission of this Appeal. However, the parties shall prepare a private paper book, if required. The Registry shall send intimation of admission of this Appeal to the Tribunal enclosing therewith a copy of this order so as to enable the Tribunal to act accordingly.
6. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
