2011 (4) TMI 1093 - HC - Service Tax

Whether the services rendered by the assessee falls within the ambit of Consulting Engineers and whether the training charges could be added as an element within the definition of Consulting Engineers - question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, not being an order 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 , and the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue, in the case of M/s. Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited (2010 - TMI - 206880 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) , the appeal is rejected as not maintainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services rendered by the assessee fall within the ambit of "Consulting Engineers"?
2. Can the training charges be added as an element within the definition of "Consulting Engineers"?

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the Tribunal's order that training provided to employees of purchasers does not fall under "Consulting Engineers." The Tribunal set aside previous orders and granted relief to the assessee. The main issue is whether the services provided by the assessee can be categorized as "Consulting Engineers."

2. The High Court highlighted that the question raised falls under an exception specified in Section 35G, stating that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to decide on issues related to excise duty or goods' value determination. Citing a previous case, the Court emphasized that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Consequently, the High Court deemed the appeal not maintainable and directed the Revenue to approach the Apex Court for further proceedings. The Court also instructed the High Court registry to return certified copies of the orders to the Department for potential appeal filing with the Apex Court.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of jurisdiction to decide on the issue raised, and directed the Revenue to seek redressal from the Apex Court.