$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 26^th February, 2026 + SERTA 3/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI, SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE

2^ND & 3^RD FLOOR, EIL ANNEXE BUILDING, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066.

.....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Akshay Sagar, Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Mr.Shubham Mishra & Mr. Madhav Anand, Advocates.

versus M/S BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY

4TH FLOOR, SEWA BHAWAN, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.

.....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Preetam Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.

CM APPL. 4853/2026 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

SERTA 3/2026

3. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Revenue. The challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 16^th September, 2025, passed in Final Order No.51323/2025 in Service Tax Appeal no.

50359/2025, passed by the CESTAT.

4. By the impugned order, the CESTAT has recorded the findings that the respondent is not liable to pay service tax on fee charged under the heads “Standard & Labelling (Registration and Labelling Fee)” and “Processing Fee,” as such services were sought to be categorised under “Technical Inspection and Certification Service”.

5. The Tribunal was of the view that the issues raised before it are covered by the findings recorded by the Tribunal for an earlier period involved in 2008-09 to 2012-13 and 2013-14, vide final orders dated 27^th February, 2018 and 24^th November, 2022. The Tribunal has observed as under:

“It is not in dispute that the Tribunal in the case of the respondent itself, for the earlier period, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent in a matter where the same issue was involved. The relevant portion of the decision is as follows:-

5. We have heard both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, the crucial point involved is that, whether or not the assessee-Appellants have discharged the statutory obligation in pursuance to the Act of Parliament and the Regulations framed thereunder. On perusal of the Act and the Regulations, we have no doubt that the assessee-Appellants did discharge the statutory obligations mandated under the law. The fee collected in various forms is also pre-notified and fixed by the authority as per law. The mention of the original authority that the Regulation is optional for the manufacturers is erroneous. Regulation makes it mandatory for such labeling. Even otherwise, the fee collected from such manufacturers who approached the assessee-Appellants for labeling is for statutory performance as per law. We note that the same cannot be subjected to Service Tax liability as per the provision of taxable service. Regarding further disposal of the fee collected, the learned Chartered Accountant submitted that, as per law the assessee- Appellants are required to deposit in a designated fund which will be used for organizational expansion of the assessee- Appellants, their expansion and further requirements are mandated by the Government Regulations and they are under the direct control of the Ministry of Power supported by budgetary framework. In case of winding up of the assessee-Appellants organization, the whole of the assets and finance will lie with the Central Government under whose authority they are created.

6. In view of the above facts and discussions, we find that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. The assessee-Appellants, acting in pursuance to the statutory regulations, collected statutorily fixed fee for such performance, cannot be subjected to Service Tax. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants is allowed."

6. In view of the provision of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act