2023 (12) TMI 902 - HC - Central Excise

Appropriate forum for determination of taxability or excisability of goods for the purposes of assessment - Supreme Court or High Court - Classification of services - intermediary services or not - Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 - HELD THAT - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Menon Associates, 2014 (11) TMI 970 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein, a similar issue was considered regarding the concurrent appellate jurisdictions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The discussion was, thus, made whether the appeal was maintainable before the Delhi High Court and after recording a finding that the issue was that whether service tax was payable and whether the service rendered was export and no service tax was payable, the appeal was directed to be returned back to take appropriate steps as per law. Faced with this situation, counsels for the Revenue also could not point out any judgment to the contrary. The appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the condonation of delay in refiling applications and the disposal of multiple appeals concerning the taxability of services under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Condonation of Delay:
The applications for condonation of delay of 47-623 days in refiling the appeals were allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The delay in refiling the appeals was condoned, and the case management applications were disposed of.

Main Cases:
1. The judgment disposed of 5 appeals, including STA Nos. 13, 6 of 2021, STA No. 17 of 2019, STA No. 2 of 2022, and STA No. 2 of 2023. The appeals arose from an order passed by the Tribunal, with STA-13-2021 being the focal point. The question of law raised by the appellant-Revenue pertained to the classification of services as 'intermediary services' under the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.

2. The Tribunal's order highlighted the challenge regarding the denial of a refund claimed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that they were not liable to pay service tax as per the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not qualify as an intermediary service provider and, therefore, was not liable to pay service tax, leading to the admissibility of the refund claimed.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent's counsel, arguing that the appeals were not maintainable concerning the taxability or excisability for assessment purposes. The counsel cited relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing the appellate jurisdictions of the High Court and the Supreme Court in such matters.

4. The judgment referred to a similar case before the Delhi High Court, highlighting the appellate jurisdictions of the High Court and the Supreme Court concerning the determination of taxability or excisability of goods for assessment purposes. The case underscored the importance of the issue in determining the appropriate appellate forum.

5. The judgment noted that similar views had been upheld by other Division Benches of the High Court, emphasizing the consistency in the interpretation of appellate jurisdictions in tax-related matters. The absence of contrary judgments further supported the decision regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

6. Considering the legal provisions and precedents cited, the judgment concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it. However, the appellant was granted liberty to take appropriate steps to file the appeal before the Supreme Court if desired, emphasizing the adherence to legal procedures in pursuing further action.