2015 (3) TMI 1325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court and not this Court. Held that:- In the present case the substantial questions of law with regard to interpretation of subsection (zzzzj) of Section 65(105) arises for consideration - in the present case, no question which has a relation to the rate of duty excise or service tax is involved. As such, the Appeal would be very much tenable before this Court. Appeal admitted.
B.R. GAVAI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Ms. Niyati Hakani, Mr. Ashish Philips i/b PDS Legal for the Appellant. Mr. V.H. Kantharia with Ms. Suchitra Kamble i/b Anamika Malhotra for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the tenability of the Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal. 4. As stated earlier, Mr. Kantharia has raised a preliminary objection stating that the Appeal would lie before the Supreme Court of India and not before this Court. In this respect he relies on sub-section (1) of Section 35-G and sub-section (2) of Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Sub-section (1) of 35-G and sub-section (2) of Section 35-L read thus : "35G. Appeal to High Court - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the impugned order would reveal that in the entire order there is reference only to entry at Sr. No.(zzzzj). 8. The contention raised by the Revenue would have been right if a question that arose for consideration is as to whether the services rendered fall in 'A' entry or 'B' entry and the rate in relation to those two entries was different. Only in that event the question involved would have had relation with determination of the rate of the duty of excise. In the present case, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the services rendered by the present Appellant can be said to be covered by sub-section (zzzzj) of Section 65(105) of the said Act. 9. It is to be noted that today itself we have c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X