Case Law Details
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Sub-section (2) to section 35L was inserted with effect from 6th August 2014, i.e., prior to the passing of the order impugned in the present appeal by the CESTAT. Even otherwise, this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V Vs. Reliance Media Works Ltd. 3 has held that insertion of sub-section (2) to section 35L was clarificatory, and therefore, the issue of taxability and excisability would be an issue relating to rate of duty of excise/services for the purpose of assessment for which an appeal from the order of the Tribunal could be entertained only by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not by the High Court in terms of sections 35G of the Excise Act.
In view of the clear mandate, sub-section (2) of section 35L of the Excise Act, since the issue involved in the present appeal pertains to whether the service rendered by the assessee is a taxable service or not, in our opinion, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. This appeal has been fled under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Finance Act, 1994 against the order dated 14th August 2014 passed the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (CESTAT), whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed as withdrawn, and the one filed by the respondent was allowed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
