2018 (8) TMI 905 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Taxability - Held that - Section 35L(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which clearly provides that determination of any question having relation with the rate of duty shall include determination of taxability of goods for the purpose of assessment, for decision of which exclusive jurisdiction is with Hon ble the Supreme Court - appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal; Maintainability of appeal in dispute over tax liability; Interpretation of Section 35L(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent argued that the appeal is not maintainable as it involves a dispute over tax liability, citing precedents where similar issues were held to be not maintainable. The court considered Section 35L(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that determination of any question related to the rate of duty includes the taxability of goods for assessment, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with the appellant granted the liberty to pursue appropriate remedies against the order.

The court emphasized the significance of Section 35L(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which explicitly addresses the determination of taxability of goods for assessment purposes falling within the realm of the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction. By invoking this provision, the court justified its decision to dismiss the appeal on grounds of maintainability. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the hierarchy of judicial forums in matters concerning tax liability disputes.

The dismissal of the appeal was accompanied by the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This decision further highlights the court's strict adherence to procedural requirements and timelines in legal proceedings. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of timely compliance with procedural rules and the consequences of failing to meet such requirements in legal matters, even when challenging tax liability determinations.