2021 (10) TMI 317 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - CENVAT Credit - input services - transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of removal, up to 01.04.2008 - varying interpretation of the term ' nput service' in various decisions - HELD THAT - The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted a letter to the Registry stating that this appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn on the ground of Low Tax Effect, as per the monetary limits fixed by the National Litigation Policy. The letter circulated by the learned Senior Standing Counsel is placed on the record and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the Substantial Questions of law are left open.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue under Section 35G(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 against Final order No. 859 of 2011.
2. Substantial Questions of Law regarding the interpretation of "input service" and reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 35G(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the Final order No. 859 of 2011 issued by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The appeal was admitted based on the Substantial Questions of Law raised, which primarily revolved around the interpretation of the term "input service" as per the Act.

2. The Substantial Questions of Law included whether the CESTAT was correct in relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court regarding the inclusion of transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final products in the definition of "input service" up to a specific date. Another question raised was about the varying interpretations of the term "input service" in different decisions, and whether the CESTAT in Chennai correctly interpreted the term in the order under consideration.

3. During the proceedings, Mrs. R. Hemalatha, the learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the appellant, presented arguments before the court. Despite the 1st respondent being served, no appearance was made on their behalf during the hearing.

4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted a letter to the Registry requesting the withdrawal of the appeal on the grounds of Low Tax Effect, in accordance with the monetary limits set by the National Litigation Policy.

5. The letter submitted by the Senior Standing Counsel was placed on record, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law remained unresolved, and no costs were awarded in this matter. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case due to the withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant.