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, which has held that the activity of ''transferring technology'' cannot be brought within the ambit of ''Consulting Engineer'' and therefore, service tax cannot be levied.
This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:
Whether the CESTAT was right in holding that the ''Consulting Engineer Services'' is not taxable under Sec. 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 following the decisions referred to in the impugned order passed by it which Judgments have not attained finality?
The said question fails squarely within the exception carved out in Section 35G, ''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.