2012 (8) TMI 503 - HC - Central Excise

Consulting Engineer Service Held that - Dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase rate of duty - It is only the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Act which is competent to decide the aforesaid question of law - appeal is rejected as not maintainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the activities of the respondent fall under "Consulting Engineer Service."
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to decide on the classification dispute.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of "Consulting Engineer Service"
The appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged the Tribunal's order that classified the activities of the assessee, including technical assistance, technical information/transfer of technical know-how, and consultancy, as falling under the category of "Consulting Engineer Service." The substantial questions of law raised for consideration included whether the services received by the respondent would be taxable under the definition of "Consulting Engineer Service" as per Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute primarily revolved around the classification of the company's activities as falling within the scope of "Consulting Engineer."

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court
The appeal was filed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the High Court determined that the dispute regarding the classification of services fell within the realm of the "rate of duty," which is under the jurisdiction of the Apex Court as per Section 35L of the Act. Consequently, the High Court held that it did not have the authority to decide on the classification issue and rejected the appeal as not maintainable. The Court directed the High Court registry to return the certified copies of the orders to enable the revenue to file an appeal with the Apex Court.

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court's judgment centered on the interpretation of whether the activities of the respondent constituted "Consulting Engineer Service" and the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in deciding classification disputes related to the rate of duty. The Court found that the classification issue fell within the purview of the Apex Court and rejected the appeal, allowing the revenue to pursue the matter further with the Apex Court.