High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal on Excisability of IT Services, Directs Matter to Supreme Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue challenging the CESTAT order on the excisability of information technology services, stating that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized that disputes involving excise duty, goods' value, classification, exemptions, and manufacturing processes must be addressed at the Supreme Court level, not at the High Court. Therefore, the High Court ruled that the appeal was not maintainable and directed the appellant to approach the Supreme Court for further proceedings, adhering to the statutory provisions of the Act.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against CESTAT order on excisability of information technology service under business auxiliary service; Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal by the Revenue challenging a CESTAT order that the services provided by the respondent were related to information technology service and not excisable to tax under business auxiliary service. The Court referred to a previous Division Bench decision stating that matters involving imposition of duty against exemptions claimed by the assessee must be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35G of the Act, not by the High Court. The Division Bench specifically outlined disputes falling outside the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 35G, including issues related to excise duty, goods' value for assessment, goods classification, exemptions, and manufacturing processes. The Court emphasized that disputes on these matters should be taken to the Supreme Court under Section 35L(b) of the Act, not to the High Court under Section 35G.

The Court, based on the precedent set by the Division Bench, concluded that the appeal was not maintainable in the High Court. The specific issue in question was the classification of services as either information technology service or business auxiliary service. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, granting the appellant the liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act for further proceedings. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal in line with the jurisdictional limitations set forth under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---