2016 (6) TMI 876 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal before High Court - Classification of taxable service - Section 65A(2)(b) of Finance Act, 1994 - composite services bearing the essential characters of taxable service of Maintenance and Repair, Business Auxillary Services, Management Consultancy, Consulting Engineering Services and C & F Agents - Held that - While adverting to the contentious issues raised and answered and testing the same with reference to the statutory provisions, viz., 35-G and 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we are in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the revenue has to file an appeal directly to the Hon ble Supreme Court, under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of appeals against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
- Interpretation of Section 35-G and Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Determination of substantial questions of law in the appeals.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeals
The appeals were filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The primary objection raised was regarding the maintainability of the instant appeals. The respondent's counsel contended that an appeal against the Tribunal's order would lie to the High Court only if it does not relate to the determination of any question related to the right of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment purposes. It was argued that in matters involving duty classification, the order of the Tribunal cannot be challenged in the High Court, and the revenue must appeal directly to the Supreme Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 35-G and Section 35-L
Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allows for an appeal to the High Court if the case involves a substantial question of law, except for matters related to the rate of duty or the value of goods. On the other hand, Section 35-L provides for appeals to the Supreme Court from judgments of the High Court made under Section 35-G or on references made under different sections. The Court examined these statutory provisions in relation to the contentious issues raised and concurred with the submissions made by the respondent's counsel regarding the maintainability of the appeals.

Issue 3: Determination of Substantial Questions of Law
After considering the objections to the maintainability of the appeals and reviewing the relevant paragraphs of the Tribunal's order, the Court concluded that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals cannot be adjudicated due to the appeals being deemed not maintainable. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed, with the option given to the appellant to seek an appropriate remedy if desired, and no costs were awarded.

In summary, the High Court of Madras found that the appeals were not maintainable as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court upheld the objections raised regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters and dismissed the appeals without delving into the substantial questions of law raised.