Full Text
Translation output
( . . ■ /
$-24 to 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SERTA 2/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, ' CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH Appellant
Through Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Adv.
$-24 to 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SERTA 2/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, ' CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH Appellant
Through Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Adv.
VERSUS
' SIDH DESIGNERSPVT.LTD. Respondent
Through Dr. G.K.Sarkar,Mr.Mala AND
Through Dr. G.K.Sarkar,Mr.Mala AND
SERTA.3/2018 {
CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH '! Appellant Counsel with Mr. Akhi!Kulshrestha, Adv.■
'
CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH '! Appellant Counsel with Mr. Akhi!Kulshrestha, Adv.■
'
VERSUS
YOGMAYA TRADERS PVT.LTD. ' .....Respondent
Through AND
Through AND
SERTA 4/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, - , CENTRAL TAX-,DELHI SOUTH ...., Appellant
. Through Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Ad\j.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, - , CENTRAL TAX-,DELHI SOUTH ...., Appellant
. Through Mr. Amit Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Ad\j.
VERSUS
D S M INTERNATIONAL Respondent
Through AND 2018:DHC:8788-DB
■
V- " + SERTA 5/2018 .
CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH Appellant Counsel with Mr. Akhil'Kulshrestha, Adv. '
Through AND 2018:DHC:8788-DB
■
V- " + SERTA 5/2018 .
CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH Appellant Counsel with Mr. Akhil'Kulshrestha, Adv. '
VERSUS
■
GD MANGALAM EXIM PVT.LTD; Respondent
Through
"■ 'AND
O' , + ; SERTA 6/2018 CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH ..... Appellant
Through , Mr. Amit Barisal, Sr. Standing - , Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Adv. . , ■
GD MANGALAM EXIM PVT.LTD; Respondent
Through
"■ 'AND
O' , + ; SERTA 6/2018 CENTRAL TAX,DELHI SOUTH ..... Appellant
Through , Mr. Amit Barisal, Sr. Standing - , Counsel with Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Adv. . , ■
VERSUS
' -
KONARK EXIM PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
Through
KONARK EXIM PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
10.01.2018 , - The order in original which was, impugned by the
Commissioner of Service Tax before the Central Excise and Service
' Tax Tribunarmakes a determination of questipns having relation to the rate of duty and value of service for puiq)Ose of assessment.
ThereforCj High Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act read with
Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 as held by this court in
Commissioner ofService Tax v. Ernst& YoungPvt.Ltd. 2014[34]
S.T.R.3(Del.).
■ • N ■
^ In view ofthe aforesaid position,notwithstanding the reasoning and the ground mentioned in the order passed by the Tribunal, the
♦ appeal would lie before the Supreme Court and not befpre the High .
Court. Theforum ofappeal would be determined by the findings and issue in the order in original, made the subject matter ofthe challenge before the Tribunal, and not the mere reasoning given and recorded by the Tribunal.
Recording the above, we told that the present appeals are not maintainable before the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid position, the application for condonation ofdelay is also not examined.
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
CHANDERI^KHAR,J.
JANUARY 10,2018 b
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
10.01.2018 , - The order in original which was, impugned by the
Commissioner of Service Tax before the Central Excise and Service
' Tax Tribunarmakes a determination of questipns having relation to the rate of duty and value of service for puiq)Ose of assessment.
ThereforCj High Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act read with
Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 as held by this court in
Commissioner ofService Tax v. Ernst& YoungPvt.Ltd. 2014[34]
S.T.R.3(Del.).
■ • N ■
^ In view ofthe aforesaid position,notwithstanding the reasoning and the ground mentioned in the order passed by the Tribunal, the
♦ appeal would lie before the Supreme Court and not befpre the High .
Court. Theforum ofappeal would be determined by the findings and issue in the order in original, made the subject matter ofthe challenge before the Tribunal, and not the mere reasoning given and recorded by the Tribunal.
Recording the above, we told that the present appeals are not maintainable before the High Court.
In view of the aforesaid position, the application for condonation ofdelay is also not examined.
SANJIV KHANNA,J.
CHANDERI^KHAR,J.
JANUARY 10,2018 b
JUDGMENT