TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1994? Held that:- The questions raised by the Revenue whether the sale of goods would amount to supply of service for purpose of valuation is an issue which directly relates to valuation of goods. It is relevant to note that the Central Government had issued a Notification No. 12/03 ST dated 20th June, 2003 exempting supply of good from service tax. This prima facie would suggest that otherwise the value of goods supplied by a service provider may be included in the valuation of the services, in the absence of the Notification. However, these are all issues relating to valuation and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The common impugned order relates to valuation of services for the purposes of assessment under the Act - The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenants / clients amounts to sale of goods and not supply of service ? (b) Whether the supply of electricity by the Respondent herein to their tenants / clients is an essential and integral part of the service namely Renting of Immovable Property Services , as provided under Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994 ? 3. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal points out that the proceedings commenced with the show cause notice issued to the Appellants invoking the Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value), Rules 2006 seeks to include the electricity charges received by the Respondents as reimbursements from its tenants in the assessable value of the service of renting of immovable properties under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods or supply of services is a question which touches taxability of the consideration received for supply of electricity. In support he relies upon the decision of this Court in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. Vs. C.S.T., Mumbai CEA No. 66 of 2014 decided on 23rd March, 2015. 6. Our jurisdiction in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is determined by the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal. It is not determined by the manner in which the question is proposed. This is evident from Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which excludes our appellate jurisdiction on the basis of the issue decided by the Tribunal. In fact on this issue we are in respectful agreement with the view of the Punjab and Harya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification. However, these are all issues relating to valuation and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The decision in the case of Global Vectra Helicop Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Bangur would have no application to the present facts. In that case the issue was whether a particular service was at all taxable under the Act. In the above case, the Court was concerned with the order of the Tribunal that determined that in the facts before it that Section 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Act viz. supply of tangible goods without loss of possession / control of the same, is not attracted. In the absence of the service being held taxable under the above head, it was not taxable. In the above facts, the issue is one of taxibility. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion relating to classification of goods under the taxibility and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; (iv) 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. The aforesaid interpretation placed by the Apex Court in interpreting the words determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or the value of goods for the purpose of assessment . In view of the amendment to Section 35L, the following category of cases would be required to be excluded to the said categories. determination of disputes relating to taxibility or exercising of goods for purpose of assessment . 10. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
