2011 (4) TMI 538 - HC - Service Tax

Demand - Courier service - Rule 4 of the Export Rules, 2005 - whether the assessee is liable to pay service tax for a courier service during the period from 15-3-2005 to 15-6-2005 as the service provided by the assessee constitutes export of service - This case falls squarely within the phrase determination of any question relating to rate of service tax and it is the Apex Court alone which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question under Section 35-L of the Act - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 4 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 regarding liability for service tax on courier services.
2. Applicability of Ministry Circular 341/34/2005-TRU dated 3-1-2005 on the case.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to decide on the appeal under Section 35-G.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the CESTAT, which held that courier services provided by the assessee during a specific period were not liable for service tax. The assessee operated as a 'Courier Agency' and international consignments during the said period were exempted under Rule 4 of Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Commissioner, however, disagreed, stating that since both the assessee and the service receiver were in India, it did not constitute an export of service. The Tribunal interpreted Rule 3(2) of the Export Service Rules, 2005 and ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Commissioner's order.

2. The substantial questions of law admitted for consideration included whether the service rendered by the respondent was outside India, whether they were liable to pay service tax as the service was not rendered within India, and if a specific Ministry Circular was applicable. The main issue was determining whether the courier service provided by the assessee constituted an export of service during the relevant period.

3. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G, which allows appeals to the High Court on various matters, including those related to the rate of service tax. However, the judgment highlighted that the exclusive jurisdiction to decide such questions lies with the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Act. Therefore, the High Court found the appeal not maintainable and rejected it, reserving the revenue's right to approach the Apex Court against the impugned order. The High Court Registry was directed to return the certified copy of the order to enable the assessee to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.