TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Section 35L of the Act, 1944, makes it clear that an appeal shall lie to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 respondent is engaged in providing services that would fall under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency' service under Section 65B and if they would be liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. For that purpose, the CESTAT has considered whether the respondent provides service classifiable under the head 'Goods Transport Agency' service or as contended by the respondent the charges under the head ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent, 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, the provision envisages a clear bar on appeals from an order not being an order relating to the dete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red 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 whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification relates directly and proximately to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment? 12. The question before CESTAT, was whether the respondent falls under the head 'Goods Transport Agency' service. 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 would fall under the category of 'Goods Transport Agency' service as there are payments made to the respondent under the notes line haul charges and pick-up and delivery charges and consignment notes issued by the contractor. The nature of the work undertaken by the respondent and the wordings of the agreement have been analyzed by CESTAT and having regard to the agreement, it was determined th....