TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent and has set aside the Order-in-Original bearing no. DLISVTAX002COM0441617 dated 30th December 2016 passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II (hereinafter, 'Order-in- Original'). 4. According to Mr. Tripathi, ld. Counsel for the Appellant, the CESTAT had allowed the appeal on the ground that the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') dated 19th October 2011 was barred by limitation. 5. In the present appeal, notice was issued vide order dated 24th April, 2025. Thereafter, an application i.e., the present application being CM APPL.30788/2025, had been moved by the Respondent. The prayer in the present application reads as under: "A) allow the present application by recalling the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Hon'ble court in SERTA 5 of 2025 and dismiss the present Appeal in SERTA 5 of 2025 filed by the Appellant/Revenue as not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court. B) pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 6. Mr. J. K. Mittal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the present appeal is not maintainable befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itation, the issue of taxability would have to be gone into. In a similar matter i.e. SERTA 2/2024 titled 'Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Delhi South v. M/s Spicejet Ltd.', this Court considered all the judgments cited by Mr. Mittal and has recently taken a view that even if the impugned order has dealt only with the issue of limitation, the appeal would lie under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted as under: "10. However, during the course of hearing, it is clear to this Court that upon the issue of limitation being decided, the question of taxability would have to be adjudicated. It is clear from a reading of Section 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that whenever issues of taxability arise, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court. The said provisions are extracted below: "35G. Appeal to High Court. - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the opinion of such Judges or of the majority, if any, of such Judges. (8) Where there is no such majority, the Judges shall state the point of law upon which they differ and the case shall, then, be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges of the High Court and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case including those who first heard it. (9) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section. xxx xxx xxx 35L. Appeal to the Supreme Court - (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from - (a) any judgment of the High Court delivered - (i) in an appeal made under section 35G; or (ii) on a reference made under section 35G by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1stday of July, 2003; (iii) on a reference made under section 35H, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he valuation of the taxable service. It has nothing to do with the issues sought to be raised in the appeal but it has everything to do with the nature of the order passed by the CESTAT. It may be very well for the appellant to say that it is only raising an issue pertaining to limitation but the provision does not speak about the issues raised in the appeal, on the other hand, it speaks about the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal. If the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned before the High Court relates to the determination of value of the taxable service, then an appeal from such an order would not lie to the High Court. 4. However, we feel that although those decisions do support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the approach that we have taken is a more direct. We reiterate, it is not the content of the appeal that is determinative of whether the appeal would be maintainable before the High Court or not but rather the nature of the order which is impugned in the appeal which determines the issue." 12. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgement of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the value of goods for the purposes of assessment and the Explanation thereto provides a definition of it 'for the purposes of this sub-section'. The Explanation says that the expression includes the determination of a question relating to the rate of duty; to the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment; to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; and whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for. Although this Explanation expressly confines the definition of the said expression to sub-section 5 of Section 129D, it is proper that the said expression used in the other parts of the said Act should be interpreted similarly. The statutory definition accords with the meaning we have, given to the said expression above. Questions relating to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for purposes of assessment are questions that squarely fall within the meaning of the said expression. A dispute as to the classification of goods and as to whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (3) Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Ashu Exports - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 333 (Mad.). 4. However, we feel that although those decisions do support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the approach that we have taken is a more direct. We reiterate, it is not the content of the appeal that is determinative of whether the appeal would be maintainable before the High Court or not but rather the nature of the order 5. In the present case, we find that the impugned order deals not only with the question of limitation but also with the question of valuation. It so happens that in the present case, the issue with regard to the valuation of the taxable services was decided in favour of the revenue but, because the extended period of limitation was not invokable, as per the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order. But, the order which is impugned before us deals with both the issues, that is, the issue of valuation of taxable services as also the issue of limitation. The mere fact that the appellant is only aggrieved by the decision on the point of limitation would not make an appeal from the impugned o....