2014 (5) TMI 537 - HC - Service Tax

Demand of Service tax - Revenue contended that the services rendered by appellants to other person fall under the category Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - since the point that arise for determination is in regard to the dispute as to classification of services whether the services rendered by the assessee is information technology service or business auxiliary service, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable. Following decision of Commissioner of Service tax Versus Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (India) (P.) Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 500 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CESTAT order on excisability of information technology service under business auxiliary service; Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal by the Revenue challenging a CESTAT order that the services provided by the respondent were related to information technology service and not excisable to tax under business auxiliary service. The Court referred to a previous Division Bench decision stating that matters involving imposition of duty against exemptions claimed by the assessee must be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35G of the Act, not by the High Court. The Division Bench specifically outlined disputes falling outside the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 35G, including issues related to excise duty, goods' value for assessment, goods classification, exemptions, and manufacturing processes. The Court emphasized that disputes on these matters should be taken to the Supreme Court under Section 35L(b) of the Act, not to the High Court under Section 35G.

The Court, based on the precedent set by the Division Bench, concluded that the appeal was not maintainable in the High Court. The specific issue in question was the classification of services as either information technology service or business auxiliary service. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, granting the appellant the liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act for further proceedings. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal in line with the jurisdictional limitations set forth under the Central Excise Act, 1944.