2019 (12) TMI 118 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - classification of services - sound recording services or advertising agency services - HELD THAT - It is a case of classification of services between two entries. In fact, the questions as framed by the Revenue, itself brings out the issue of classification. Therefore, in view of Section 35G this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. This appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the appeal.

Classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994:
The appeal challenged an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification of services provided by the appellant. The Revenue raised questions regarding whether the appellant provided 'sound recording services' as defined under section 65(105)(zj) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether the services rendered fell under 'advertising Agency Service'. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not provide 'sound recording services' to a specific company and that the service rendered could be classified as 'advertising Agency Service'. The appellant argued that the dispute was solely about the classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore, the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the Court. However, the Court noted that the issue of classification between two entries was evident from the show-cause notice itself. The Court concluded that the appeal was related to the classification of services between two entries, and as per Section 35G, the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable before the Court.

Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the appeal:
The primary issue addressed by the Court was whether the appeal fell within its jurisdiction. The appellant contended that the dispute was solely related to the appropriate classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the dispute over the classification of services between two competing entries was evident from the show-cause notice itself. The Court analyzed the impugned order of the Tribunal and the show-cause notice, concluding that the issue of classification was central to the appeal. In light of Section 35G, which governs the jurisdiction of the Court in such matters, the Court determined that the appeal did not fall within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before it.