Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Manickbag Industries on 6 September, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OI}: I<ARNAT.AI<.A'-
CIRCUIT BENCHAT DHA--RWAD' 2. «. "
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY'DESEP""I'E.M~B:E_,RVV§*géOI1
PREsENTP _ ' W_ T
THE HON'BLE M'R,1."UUE;'TI,CE~y..§}'*.«,,SAI3HAHIT
H ?iI«ID.f* S '
LE M'R';'JUSTIC
CEA,NO._I.:19_/
THE HON'B
MIANOHAR
'~2'_O..Q'/
BETWEEN: _, --:i__ 5, " * . ,
THE CO,M,,MI'~S,SIONEP,_ OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
BELGAUM 'CDf.MMI§,SS1O.N'ERATE,
NO.71,a_CL.UB RAOAD, BE'L--GAUM--59O 001.
;, . .=fiaN~,v_. H.APPELLANT
(BY SR1. A,.AI.PATH'AN.., "A.D'v.)
M"A,NICVI..<BAG INDUSTRIES,
V' NO 36 0*, ,_,DH"A_RwA D RAO D,
BE'L.QA'U.M.-_ 59jo"'0 16.
.V -;,~ ".RESPONDENT
(I3Y---.SRI;ANI=RUDHA R.J.NAYAK, ADv.--AI3SENT) " '*-._THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 35(3) CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 ARISING OUT OP ORDER DATED O6/O3/2007 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.289/2007 IN APPEAL NO.ST/O8/2005, "PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE ' PLEASED TO: (1) TO DECIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN; (2) SET ASIDE THE FINAL oRDE'R.__NoV;'2,_89,/20071;DATED' O6/O3/3007 PASSED C3--.ES"'l'AT, BANGALORE-IN--APPEAL No.sT/08/020005;; (3) RESTORE THE ORDER-IN...-DPIGIIIAL IJG-.04/2OO4~ 05 ST DATED 27-04w..2'004--'/is-V0-«5;20~04 AS UPHELD BY ORDER-IN-APPEAL "l\_IO.'4.Jf'5,/2004, DATED 29-12- 2004/31-12-2005. V THIS APPEAL. _BE§lNG 'I7iEAI€D'_-..AI\ID:« IQESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, €_3OM;I~1\lG_ oN- FOR PRONGUNCEMENT THIS DAY V.G.SA;BH)%H1'T-.--;i. DEL'IvEI'<=;ED,TIIE FOLLOWING:
' spy 'JUQQMENi' ThIlSw,.a.}5p¢'.al;':i$; tiled the..re_vvenue being aggrieved by the order passed':byi"the*,Ct;.stoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribiinalz Zonal Bench, Bangalore dated 14-372007. " ' "
xhaveiihiearvd the learned counsel appearing for 2 A ' quevstions of law that arise for determination in thisappea1"'are as follows:
3(1) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the service provider's activity of accepting the full responsibility for the collection of payments made by the buyers is one and only activity to decide the levy of service tax and that the service providers activities are outside the ambit of C 81, F Agent as defined under Section 65(23) of Finance Act, 1994?
xszi/' (2)
4. The -3- Whether the order of the Tribunal holding that the services of 'del cred.ereAagjent»-...._g I. nition of are outside the ambit of the.g__defi 'clearing and forwardingooagent"? ' ' Whether the order of the overriding the case law__ relied upon by '=4th'e, V original adjudicz-'tin.g authority inspi§tc..V_Vof the fact that the facts"ar"e--Isimila'r in impugned case and the case relied "upon by the adjudicating. authority?" * l Division in CEA No.55/2007 demga mi, 2:I--4l2'oi:'1'3."'(c.o1§)IMIssIoNER or SERVICE i*AX.:-""-vs."M,/s';isclo'I?Ir-- l\vI'LsoN KIRKPATRICK (INDIA) 7636'. . following disputes do not' i fall within the' jurisdiction of High Court u'nd"er.se--ctio_n 85 (g) of the Act:
a) 'Dis-pute relating to the service tax ._ payable on any service/ taxable Hservice, The value of the taxable service for the purposes of assessment, A dispute as to the classification of services, Whether those services are covered by an exemption notification or not, WI"-4-
Whether the value of services "for the 2 purposes of assessment is required . to be increased or-decreasel_,d, V, The question of whether"anydservices" are taxable serviceslor not, Whether an activity is. an * 'service rendering activity--_o'r.. not, "s--o_a,,Sy' to attract levy of service. ytéug, Whether a_ par'5:ic1.~1lar'-ifservices fall _"'w__ithin'lllwhic:h "'n_eadin'g,,.fsub--heading 'jo_f'SectioI;1 65 ("lQ5)f'o.f__t_he Service Act, ?jl_9.94 which de-fines "taxable service". 1237. _, From" the aforesaid discussion, 'itffis clear that an""o'rder passed by the _ -App'e1--1gte, WT_rib__una1 .,detern1."'iativo,ni'---,_o,f any question having relating to the 1'elation'"to_the_ rate of service taxes or to "the val._ue~,of<.--services for the purposes of assessment lies to the Supreme Court under' Se.ction 35 L (b) of the Act and not to _ the High Court under Section 35 (G). "
A was filed before the decision rendered by and in view of the above said decision, we hold 2 that appeal is not rnaintainable under Section 35--G of the Z Accordingly, for the reasons assigned in the above said A " "decision, we pass the following:
my