JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, CJ.

This bunch of Central Excise Appeals has been preferred by the Department for assailing identical orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, whereby the Service Tax Appeals preferred by the respondent/Oil India Limited against the orders in original passed by the Commissioner

of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh confirming the demand of service tax raised from the respondent by the Adjudicating Officer vide various adjudication orders in respect of the periods between April, 2011 to June, 2017 under the category of “Transportation of Goods through Pipelines/Condult Services” were accepted. The CESTAT held that the respondent assessee was a seller and not a service provider and hence, in absence of service provider/service recipient relationship, there could not be any question of levy of service tax and hence, the demand could not be sustained. Accordingly, the demand of service tax interest and penalty raised by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside.

2. Affidavits-in-opposition have been filed on behalf of the respondent in all these appeals, wherein a pertinent preliminary objection is raised regarding maintainability of these appeals by referring to the provisions contained in Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the “1944 Act”).

3. Arguments on the aspect of maintainability of these appeals have been heard. The circumstances leading to filing of the appeals were thoroughly analyzed. The applicable statutory provisions, the impugned orders and precedents cited at bar have been perused.

4. Mr. D. Sen and Mr. D. Das, learned counsel representing the respondent vehemently and fervently contended that as the only issue involved in these appeals is regarding determination of taxability of the goods for the purpose of assessment of service tax, by virtue of Section 35L of the 1944 Act, the appeal from an order of the Appellate Tribunal would lie to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not to the High Court. They urged that the High Court can entertain an appeal from an order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal only upon being satisfied that the appeal involves substantial question of law and that case does not arise from an order relating, amongst 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 the purpose of assessment. They placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of their arguments:

It was contended that the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal in the High Court in exactly identical scenario has been decided against the revenue in

these cases. On these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent implored the Court to dismiss the appeals as being not maintainable.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned senior standing counsel, Central Goods & Service Tax, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. He urged that the situation involved in the case at hand is not covered by the exceptions indicated in Section 35G of the 1944 Act. The substantial questions of law involved in these appeals do not require determination of any issue having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. The question, which is involve