Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 127 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - Classification of service - Real Estate Agent or Commercial and Industrial Construction services - Nature of amount received by the assessee as development charges - Withdrawal from work contract composition scheme - switching over from "Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" and "Construction of Complex Service" to "Works Contract Service" for the projects which were already under execution on 01.06.2007 - In-eligible benefit of abatement from the gross value - Benefit of Notification No.12/2003 - Held that:- The Tribunal, in the impugned order has held that the service rendered by the assessee does not get covered under the category of real estate agent services. Evidently, therefore, the dispute involved in the present case relates to whether the activity carried out by the assessee is a service within the meaning of such expression as defined under the Finance Act, 1994; or whether such service falls under the category of taxable service under sub-section (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the controversy involved in the present case is a classification dispute which has a direct and proximate relation to the rate of service tax or the value of any service. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said controversy. However, on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order and as such, if the court considers the appeal to the limited extent of the above infirmities in the impugned order, no question of rate of duty or value of service would be required to be adjudicated and this court would be duly empowered to decide the same. On a plain reading of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Tribunal is a non-reasoned and non-speaking one and that merely after reproduction of the decision of this Court in the case of Sujal Developers (2011 (4) TMI 1023 - Gujarat High Court), the Tribunal has held that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgement, lacks merit and is contrary to the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, the submission that the impugned order suffers from the infirmity of being a nonspeaking and non-reasoned one, is not borne out from the record of the case. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal be limited to the question as to whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is non-reasoned and nonspeaking one, does not merit acceptance. The issue involved in the present case has, therefore, a direct and proximate relation to the rate of service tax and the value of services and as such, this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the appeal would lie before the Supreme Court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Writ petition dismissed.
|