2013 (4) TMI 376 - HC - Service Tax

Point of limitation U/s 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Valuation of Taxable Services - Held that - The order which is impugned before us deals with both the issues, that is, the issue of valuation of taxable services as also the issue of limitation. The mere fact that the appellant is only aggrieved by the decision on the point of limitation would not make an appeal from the impugned order maintainable before this Court because it is not the issues raised in the appeal which are material but the nature of the order which is appealed against which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether an appeal would lie in this Court or not. In view of the fact that the impugned order deals with the question of valuation apart from the question of limitation, this appeal would not be maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - The objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondent is well founded - It is for this reason that we dismiss this appeal as being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question was filed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the appeal is maintainable as it pertains solely to the question of limitation under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994, and not to the rate of duty or valuation of taxable services.

2. Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 states that an appeal to the High Court can be made if the case involves a substantial question of law, excluding matters related to the rate of duty or valuation of goods. The nature of the order passed by the Tribunal determines the appeal's maintainability, not the specific issues raised in the appeal.

3. The High Court clarified that the appeal would not be maintainable if the impugned order relates to the valuation of taxable services, even if the appellant's grievance is limited to the question of limitation. The Court emphasized that the nature of the order, not the content of the appeal, is crucial in determining the appeal's validity.

4. Despite the appellant's argument that the appeal focused only on the limitation issue, the High Court found that the impugned order addressed both valuation and limitation matters. As the order dealt with valuation in addition to limitation, the appeal was deemed not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

5. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the relevant legal provisions. The decision was based on the understanding that the appeal's validity is contingent upon the nature of the order being appealed against, irrespective of the specific issues raised by the appellant.