AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N Kumar J.
This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal 2007 (114) ECC 68 ], which has held that the training given to the employees of the purchasers do not fail within the ambit of "Consulting Engineers" and the training charges cannot be added as an element within the definition of consulting engineers. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and granted the relief to the assessee.
Therefore, the question involved in this appeal is whether the services rendered by the assessee falls within the ambit of "Consulting Engineers" and whether the training charges could be added as an element within the definition of ''Consulting Engineers''.
The said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, "not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment", and the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue, as held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited, in CEA No. 6/2007 D.D. 1-9-2010. The appeal lies to the Apex Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question.
In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court.
The High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced, to the Department, to prefer the appeal.