AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has upheld the order of the Commissioner of appeals who held that transfer of "Technical knowhow or assistance, technical information" does not come within the ambit of definition of "Consulting Engineers" by levy of service tax.
Therefore, the question that arise for consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the transfer of technical knowhow or assistance fall within the ambit of Consulting Engineer?" In other words, whether the transfer of technical knowhow or assistance is excisable to service tax which falls within the phrase "Rate of duty?
This appeal is preferred u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As is clear from the wording of the said Section, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal 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.
The dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase "rate of duty" and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the same. It is only the Apex Court u/s 35L of the Act which is competent to decide the aforesaid question of law. In that view of the matter, this appeal is rejected as not maintainable reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court.
High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced in this case to enable the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court.