Page 190 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

236 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

ground that no rate of duty dispute arises in such a case. It held that
Sections 35G(1) and 35L(2) of the Act to the extent they oust the ju-
risdiction of the High Court will only have application where the is-
sue decided by the Tribunal, which was the subject matter of ap-
peal, is whether the services rendered or goods manufactured fall
under category (x) or category (y). In the above circumstances alone
this Court held that it becomes a rate of duty issue on account of
classification. Thus, raising a question having relation to the deter-
mination of rate of duty for the purpose of assessment. It is to be
noted that in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra) even though Reve-
nue objected to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeal,
it had not urged it on the ground that the issue involves taxability.
As can be seen from Para 7 of the order, the submission of the Rev-
enue was it is a rate of duty issue as the appeal involves classifica-
tion of the services rendered by the assessee therein under one entry
or the other. The issue of taxability was not on the table for the
Court to rule on it. Thus, when on facts this Court found that there
was only one entry for consideration, it held that it cannot be a rate
of duty issue. There was no submission made by the Revenue, while
objecting to the jurisdiction of this Court, that in respect of the order
of the Tribunal dealing with the taxability/excisability of ser-
vices/goods was necessary for determining the rate of duty for the
purpose of assessment. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court
had no occasion to consider the question of taxability and excisabil-
ity being a rate of duty issue, even when there is no question of de-
ciding between competing entries. Consequently, the aforesaid de-
cision was rendered sub-silentio.
(b) Moreover, in Global Vectra Helicorp (supra) attention of the Court
was not invited to the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Navin Chemicals (supra) and various decisions of this Court
including Union of India v. Auto Ignition Ltd., 2002 (142) E.L.T. 292,
Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Central
Excise v. Universal Fero, 2009 (234) E.L.T. 220.
(c) Mr. Sridharan, Learned Senior Counsel, placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Greatship (India) Ltd. (supra), a decision
rendered by the same Bench as the one that rendered the decision in
Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra). The decision in Greatship (India)
Ltd. (supra) was rendered on consideration of all those decisions in-
cluding the set of decisions which were not considered by the very
Division Bench in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra). Thus, it is sub-
mitted that the Bench which passed the order in Global Vectra Heli-
corp Ltd. (supra) was aware/conscious of the decisions referred to
hereinabove while holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal. This submission overlooks the fact that the decision in Glob-
al Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 23rd March, 2015.
The decision in Greatship (India) Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 24th
March, 2015. Thus, when the order in Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (su-
pra) was passed, it cannot be said that the Division Bench was con-
scious of the aforesaid decisions which appear to have been noticed
and considered by it only in its order passed on the next day i.e.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  206