The High Court held that appeals against Service Tax Tribunal orders regarding duty rates do not fall under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994. Consequently, such appeals are not maintainable before the High Court.
Appeals for quashing of jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Signing Date:18.10.2024 16:47:39 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
" + SERTA 5/2018 .
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX, DELHI SOUTH Appellant Through Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akhil 'Kulshrestha, Adv. ' versus I GD MANGALAM EXIM PVT. LTD; Respondent Through "■ 'AND
O' , + ; SERTA 6/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH ..... Appellant Through , Mr. Amit Barisal, Sr. Standing - , Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Adv. . , versus ' - KONARK EXIM PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
ORDER
V-
% 10.01.2018
, - The order in original which was, impugned by the Commissioner of Service Tax before the Central Excise and Service ' Tax Tribunarmakes a determination of questipns having relation to the rate of duty and value of service for puiq)Ose of assessment. ThereforCj High Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 as held by this court in
Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. 2014 [34]
S.T.R. 3 (Del.).
I • N I
^
In view of the aforesaid position, notwithstanding the reasoning and the ground mentioned in the order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal would lie before the Supreme Court and not ♦ befpre the High . Court. The forum of appeal would be determined by the findings and issue in the order in original, made the subject matter of the challenge before the Tribunal, and not the mere reasoning given and recorded by the Tribunal.
Recording the above, we told that the present appeals are not maintainable before the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid position, the application for condonation of delay is also not examined.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER I^KHAR, J.
JANUARY 10, 2018
b
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders of the Service Tax Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. 2014 [34] S.T.R. 3 (Del.)Applied¶11
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi South
I.G.D. Mangalam Exim Pvt. Ltd
Konark Exim Pvt. Ltd
Sanjiv Khanna
Chander Shekhar
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a service tax matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
