JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

These four appeals arise from a common order dated 10th December 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai. By the orders as impugned in each of the appeals, the Tribunal has rejected the appellant’s appeals thereby confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Assessing Officer. By the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the demand for payment of service tax against the petitioner was confirmed. The service tax was sought to be levied on the services subject matter of the Agreement dated 21st January 2008 and 25th March 2009 (agreement in supersession of the earlier agreement) whereunder, the appellant had awarded media rights to one MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. and World Sport Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. which were sought to be taxed by levy of service tax.

2. The appellant was issued show cause notices for the relevant periods being F.Y. 2007-08, F.Y. 2008-09, F.Y. 2010-11 and F.Y. 2011-12, classifying the assessee as a ‘Franchisee’ within the meaning of Section 65 (47) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to services rendered by it to MSM Satelite (Singapore) which were in respect of telecast of Indian Premier League (IPL) Cricket matches, being played on the Indian soil.

3. It is seen from the record that the issue before the Tribunal was in regard to the taxability of the said services, as the appellant had taken a specific plea in regard to the non-taxability of the said services, inter alia, contending that such services and subject matter of such agreements, as sought to be taxed, were transactions of “export of service,” falling within the purview of Export of Services Rules, 2005, including the applicability of an amendment as brought about to Rule 3 (1) of the said Rules by Export of Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010, with effect from 27th February 2010. The Tribunal in adjudicating the appellant’s appeal considered such issue, however, it did not find favour with the contentions as urged on behalf of the appellant that such services were not taxable. The Tribunal has held that the transaction was not a transaction of export of service.

4. In the above circumstances, the appellant is before us in these appeals for the periods as noted above.

5. We had taken up these appeals for hearing when Mr.Mishra on behalf of the respondent/revenue has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these appeals before this Court, contending that the issue raised in these appeals, is in regard to determination of taxability of the services for the purpose of assessment. Referring to the provisions of Section 35H and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (for short the “1944 Act”) as made applicable to the service tax, Mr. Mishra would submit that on the issue on determination of taxability, the appeals would lie before the Supreme Court. He has also drawn our attention to a recent order passed by this Court in case of The Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai East Commionerate Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., Central Excise Appeal No.13 of 2021 decided on 8th June 2023. This Court, in such case, had considered an objection as raised on behalf of the respondent/assesses therein, on the maintainability of the Revenue’s appeal. The Court has noted the provisions of the 1944 Act, as extended to the Finance Act, 1994, in relation to levy of service tax. In such decision, this Court considering the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise,Mumbai-V Commissionerate Vs. M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd., 2020 (372) ELT 220 (Bom.) as also the decision of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online Bom 4054 and in The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-VII, Mumbai Vs. M/s.Phoenix International Freight Service Pvt. Ltd., Central Excise Appeal No.18 of 2022 decided on 7th December 2022 observed that on a cumulative