TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Act, 1944, is raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the matter is taken up for consideration accordingly. 2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that this appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1944' for short) is not maintainable and the same is maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act, 1944. In order to buttress his contention, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered and laid at rest the issue in M/S. ALUPRO BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-II [2026 INSC 582]. He submitted that Clause (ii) of subsection (1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that excisability falls within the excluded class of questions. Therefore, it was held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the question of excisability and the proper forum was the Supreme Court. 4. Applying the test, learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT') has gone into the question whether the activity of 'marketing promotional and after-sales services' provided by the respondent to their Singapore entity qualify as services of an 'Intermediary' in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 for the rejection of the respondent's refund claim of CENVAT credit. For that purpose, the CESTAT has considered wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal is therefore maintainable before this Court. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments cited by the learned Counsels, for deciding the issue regarding maintainability of this appeal. 7. In M/S. ALUPRO BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. [2026 INSC 582], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while analyzing the scope and purport of Sections 35G and 35L of the Act, 1944, has held that a plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 35G would reveal that an appeal lies to the High Court from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal where it does not relate to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of excise duty or to the value of goods. In other words, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n i.e., the rate of excise duty and the value of goods. In other words, the exclusion is not triggered by every question touching upon the rate of duty or value of goods in the abstract. The question must have a relation to rate or value specifically in the context of assessment. It was also held that another good reason to hold the aforesaid is that decision on such an issue would not only have ramifications in personam but also in rem. 9. It is necessary to notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered many earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, including NAVIN CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING & TRADING CO. LTD. VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [(1993) 4 SCC 320] where it was held that a dispute as to the classification of goods and as to w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relates to, among 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 purposes of assessment? 12. The question formulated by CESTAT, in paragraph 40 of the impugned order is, "whether the appellant is an intermediary in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place Provision of Service Rules, 2012" and "whether the services supplied by the appellant to its parent entity located outside India qualify as an export of services in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994". The CESTAT, for the purpose has considered the show-cause notice issued by the competent authority where it is alleged that the services rendered by the respondent to their overseas entity is in the natu....