2017 (6) TMI 118 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Classification of services - Held that - the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment would be covered by Section 35 L of the FA, 1994 and the appeal in such case from an order of the CESTAT would lie directly to the Supreme Court - appeal dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption application (CM No. 19452/2017)
2. Condonation of delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal (CM No. 19453/2017)
3. Condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal (CM No. 19451/2017)
4. Classification of services rendered by the Respondent - business auxiliary services or export of services (SERTA 2/2017)

Exemption Application (CM No. 19452/2017):
The exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Condonation of Delay of 28 Days in Re-filing the Appeal (CM No. 19453/2017):
The delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned based on the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of.

Condonation of Delay of 42 Days in Filing the Appeal (CM No. 19451/2017):
Similarly, the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal was condoned for the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of.

Classification of Services Rendered by the Respondent - Business Auxiliary Services or Export of Services (SERTA 2/2017):
The Respondent argued that the services rendered should be classified as "business auxiliary services," while the CESTAT had accepted the case that it was a case of export of services and thus exempt from service tax. Reference was made to a previous order where it was held that certain questions related to excise duty or value of goods would fall under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994, and appeals in such cases would lie directly to the Supreme Court. The Respondent pointed out that appeals against a related decision were pending in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, with the option for the Appellant to pursue an appeal under Section 35L of the Act before the Supreme Court.

This judgment delves into various procedural aspects such as exemption applications, condonation of delays in filing appeals, and the critical issue of the classification of services rendered by the Respondent. The decision emphasizes the legal framework governing appeals related to excise duty and value of goods, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to maintainability concerns and directing the Appellant towards the appropriate legal remedy.