2019 (4) TMI 1354 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of an appeal before the High Court - Benefit of Notification No.1/2009 ST dated 5th January, 2009 - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the condition of Notification No.1/2009 ST dated 05.01.2009 i.e. invoice of the service provider bearing the details of consignment note, cannot be expected to be complied with by the assessee as the condition was not prevailing at the time? - HELD THAT - The issue arising in the present appeal is with regard to applicability of an exemption Notification. Thus, it is a clear case of rate of duty issue. Therefore, in terms of Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise act, 1944 which have been incorporated in Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable before this Court. The appeal not being maintainable before this Court is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order allowing refund claim based on Notification No.1/2009­ST dated 5th January, 2009 under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 30th January, 2017, which allowed a refund claim of &8377; 32.82 lakhs based on Notification No.1/2009­ST dated 5th January, 2009. The appellant raised two questions of law for consideration by the High Court. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the condition of the Notification regarding the invoice details of the service provider was not applicable at the time. Secondly, whether the Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of the Notification to the assessee despite the non-fulfillment of its sole condition. The High Court noted that the issue in the appeal pertained to the applicability of an exemption Notification, making it a rate of duty issue. Consequently, the High Court found that the appeal was not maintainable before it under Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 incorporated in Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court ruled that any appeal against the Tribunal's order would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability before it.

This judgment primarily addressed the challenge to the Tribunal's decision allowing a refund claim based on a specific Notification. The High Court's analysis focused on the questions of law raised by the appellant regarding the applicability of the Notification and the fulfillment of its conditions. The High Court clarified that the issue at hand was related to the rate of duty, emphasizing that the appeal did not fall within its jurisdiction but should be directed to the Supreme Court. The decision highlighted the legal framework under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994, guiding the court's determination of the appeal's maintainability. By dismissing the appeal, the High Court underscored the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and the appropriate forum for addressing such legal disputes, ultimately upholding the principle of legal procedure and hierarchy in adjudicating tax matters.