2020 (3) TMI 1004 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Recovery of service tax - classification of services - Construction of Complex Services or Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - period from April, 2005 to March, 2010 - HELD THAT - Indeed, whether the services provided by the Respondent were classifiable directly as 'Construction of residential Complexes and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' or as 'Works Contract Service' was a neat question of law. The case involves the issue of classification and, therefore, in such instance an appeal against the order of the CESTAT would lie in the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, even if there are other questions involved. The present appeal before this Court is not maintainable.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal
2. Placing documents on record
3. Appeal against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
4. Substantial question of law regarding classification of services
5. Maintainability of the appeal before the High Court

Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal:
The judgment begins with an application for condonation of a 5-day delay in re-filing the appeal, which is allowed by the court for reasons stated, thereby condoning the delay.

Placing documents on record:
Another application is made for placing documents on record, which is allowed by the court for reasons stated, and the documents are taken on record.

Appeal against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal:
The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax preferred an appeal against the final order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 24th October, 2018. The appeal raised a substantial question of law regarding the correctness of CESTAT's decision in light of a Supreme Court case.

Substantial question of law regarding classification of services:
The appeal raised a question of law concerning the classification of services provided by the respondent. The CESTAT had classified the services under 'Works Contract Service,' contrary to the demand raised under 'Construction of residential complexes and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service.'

Maintainability of the appeal before the High Court:
During the hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The respondent argued that matters involving disputes over classification should be entertained by the Supreme Court. The court agreed with the respondent's contention, citing relevant legal provisions and a previous court decision. The court held that the appeal before the High Court was not maintainable, and the appellant was advised to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue of classification raised in the appeal falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as per the relevant legal provisions and previous court decisions. The appellant was directed to pursue the appropriate legal remedies available.