Exemption application granted; appeal delays condoned, but appeal dismissed on service classification grounds.

The exemption application (CM No. 19452/2017) was allowed subject to all just exceptions. The delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal (CM No. 19453/2017) and the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal (CM No. 19451/2017) were both condoned based on reasons stated in the applications. However, in the matter of the classification of services rendered by the Respondent, the appeal was dismissed on grounds of maintainability. The Respondent's argument for "business auxiliary services" classification was rejected, with the court directing the Appellant to pursue an appeal under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Exemption application (CM No. 19452/2017)
2. Condonation of delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal (CM No. 19453/2017)
3. Condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal (CM No. 19451/2017)
4. Classification of services rendered by the Respondent - business auxiliary services or export of services (SERTA 2/2017)

Exemption Application (CM No. 19452/2017):
The exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Condonation of Delay of 28 Days in Re-filing the Appeal (CM No. 19453/2017):
The delay of 28 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned based on the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of.

Condonation of Delay of 42 Days in Filing the Appeal (CM No. 19451/2017):
Similarly, the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal was condoned for the reasons stated in the application, and the application was disposed of.

Classification of Services Rendered by the Respondent - Business Auxiliary Services or Export of Services (SERTA 2/2017):
The Respondent argued that the services rendered should be classified as "business auxiliary services," while the CESTAT had accepted the case that it was a case of export of services and thus exempt from service tax. Reference was made to a previous order where it was held that certain questions related to excise duty or value of goods would fall under Section 35L of the Finance Act, 1994, and appeals in such cases would lie directly to the Supreme Court. The Respondent pointed out that appeals against a related decision were pending in the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, with the option for the Appellant to pursue an appeal under Section 35L of the Act before the Supreme Court.

This judgment delves into various procedural aspects such as exemption applications, condonation of delays in filing appeals, and the critical issue of the classification of services rendered by the Respondent. The decision emphasizes the legal framework governing appeals related to excise duty and value of goods, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to maintainability concerns and directing the Appellant towards the appropriate legal remedy.

---