Commissioner of Service Tax vs Vodafone Essar South Limited

N. Kumar, J.—Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has directed for refund of service tax relying on the notification dated June 15, 2007 issued under section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The argument is, payment of service tax was prior to the issue of the notification and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Therefore, the question for consideration is, whether the notification is prospective or retrospective? Therefore the question involved is, interpretation of the notification. This court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (India) Pvt. Limited, has held as under (para 45, page 30 in 43 VST) :

"36. Broadly the following disputes do not fall within the jurisdiction of High Court under section 35(g) of the Act:--

(a) Dispute relating to the service tax payable on any service/taxable service.

(b) The value of the taxable service for the purposes of assessment?

(c) A dispute as to the classification of services.

(d) Whether those services are covered by an exemption notification or not?

(e) Whether the value of services for the purposes of assessment is required to be increased or decreased?

(f) The question of whether any services are taxable services or not?

(g) Whether an activity is a service rendering activity or not, so as to attract levy of service tax?

(h) Whether a particular service falls within which heading, subheading of section 65(105) of the Service Tax Act, 1994 which defines ''taxable service''."

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the question involved in this appeal has to be decided by the apex court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to prefer an appeal to the apex court. Registry is directed to return all the impugned orders and other papers filed, to enable the Revenue to prefer an appeal.