IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore — Appellant
Vs.
Tottori Sanyo Electric Company — Respondent
Central Excise Appeal No. 112 of 2007
Decided on : 13-04-2011
Consulting Engineer Service - Classification of Technical Assistance and Transfer of Technology - The court held that the dispute was whether the activity carried on by the company falls within the services of 'Consulting Engineer' and that the dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase 'rate of duty', and therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the same. The appeal was rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court.
Fact of the Case:
The revenue appealed the Tribunal's order which held that the activity carried on by the assessee, i.e., technical assistance, technical information/transfer of technical know-how and consultancy, comes within the category of 'Consulting Engineer Service'. The substantial question of law was whether the services received by the respondent would come within the scope of taxable service, viz., 'Consulting Engineer Service', and whether the decisions relied by CESTAT constitute res-integra and could have any applicability to the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase 'rate of duty', and therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to go into the same. The appeal was rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court.
Issues: The issues were whether the services received by the respondent would come within the scope of taxable service, viz., 'Consulting Engineer Service', and whether the decisions relied by CESTAT constitute res-integra and could have any applicability to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase 'rate of duty', and therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the same.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court.
N. Kumar, J.—The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (9) S.T.R. 85 (T)] which has held that the activity carried on by the assessee i.e., technical assistance, technical information /transfer of technical know-how and consultancy comes within the category of "Consulting Engineer Service". This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law :-
(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case, the CESTAT, Bangalore was legal and correct in holding that transfer of technology, technical know-how and Technical Assistance, received by the respondent, would not come within the scope of taxable service, viz., 'Consulting Engineer Service', as defined under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994?
(2) Whether, in view of clarification issued by the Board vide Circular F. No. B.43/5/97-TRU, dated 2-7-1997 and Principal Bench's decision cited above, the aforesaid services would not come within the purview of Consulting Engineer Service and leviable to service tax?
(3) Whether the decisions relied by CESTAT do constitute res-integra and whether the ratio of those decisions could have any applicability to the present case?
2. From the aforesaid questions raised, it is clear that the dispute is whether the activity carried on by the company - the respondent, falls within the services of "Consulting Engineer"? In other words, it is a dispute regarding classification. If it falls within any one of those categories, then the question is 'Whether a foreign company is liable to pay service tax on such activity?'
3. This appeal is preferred under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As is clear from the wordings 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.
4. 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 under Section 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.