2015 (1) TMI 994 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Held that - By virtue of provision of Section 35G sub-section (9) the provision of Civil Procedure Code, in so far as the appeals to the High Court are concerned are applicable. - Sub-section (3) of Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code provides that No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties. The decree passed by the Tribunal being a consent decree, this appeal is clearly not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court in appeals against consent orders

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal under Section 35G against a judgment passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal based on a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another Tribunal decision. However, the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the Tribunal's order was a consent order, making the appeal not sustainable. The respondent cited Section 35G(9) of the Central Excise Act and Section 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which state that no appeal lies from a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties. The respondent contended that since the Tribunal's order was a consent decree, the appeal should be dismissed on this ground alone. The Court agreed with the respondent's argument and dismissed the appeal, upholding the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The Court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 35G(9) and Section 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which bar appeals from consent decrees. Hence, the appeal was not maintainable due to the nature of the Tribunal's order as a consent decree, and it was dismissed on this basis.