Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi II Vs Shyam Spectra Private Limited (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act before High Court is not maintainable whenever issues of determining taxability are involved. Accordingly, present appeal is rejected.
Facts- The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi II u/s. 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, inter alia, challenging the final order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 31st July, 2024.
Vide the said impugned order, the CESTAT has allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent and has set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30th December 2016 passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II.
According to the Appellant, the CESTAT had allowed the appeal on the ground that the Show Cause Notice dated 19th October 2011 was barred by limitation. In the present appeal, notice was issued vide order dated 24thApril, 2025. Thereafter, an application e., the present application had been moved by the Respondent.
Conclusion- Division Bench in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited has held that on a plain reading of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it is clear that no appeal would lie to the High Court from an order passed by CESTAT if such an order relates to, among other things, the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the valuation of the taxable service. If the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned before the High Court relates to the determination of value of the taxable service, then an appeal from such an order would not lie to the High Court.
