Page 164 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

554 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

count - Question of limitation not gone into by the Tribunal in its proper per-
spective - Factual issue with regard to suppression of facts ought to have been
gone into in detail by Tribunal - Mixed questions of facts and law being in-
volved, matter remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration and re-determination
- Section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 18, 19, 22]
Matter remanded
CASES CITED
Annapurna Plastic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (367) E.L.T. 220 (All.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 13]
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla & Brothers
— 2010 (254) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) = 2011 (22) S.T.R.105 (S.C.) — Referred ..................................... [Para 13]
Chamunda Synprocess (India) Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner
— 2019 (365) E.L.T. 12 (Raj.) — Referred .................................................................................... [Para 13]
Commissioner v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 252 (Bom.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 13]
Padmavati Tubes v. Commissioner — 2017 (351) E.L.T. 38 (Guj.) — Referred ............................... [Para 13]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri P.K. Das, Indranil Banerjee and Bhaskar
Sengupta, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri K.K. Maity and Ms. A. Rajyashree, Advocates,
for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The Court : On 13th August, 2019 this appeal was admitted
under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, expressly keeping the point of
maintainability raised by the Revenue that the appeal lay before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, open by
the following order :-
“The Court : Mr. Das, Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that
the service rendered by his client was essentially watch and ward service to
the metro railways and it was classifiable as such. But the respondent had
erroneously classified it as security service. Learned Counsel submits that
for the service rendered, no service tax was leviable.
Mr. Maiti for the revenue submits that this is a classification dispute to
be determined by the Supreme Court.
Whether at all it is a classification dispute or not is disputed. The
question has to be gone into by this Court. Only after the point of maintain-
ability is decided can the merits be gone into by this Court.
In those circumstances, this intended appeal under Section 35G of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is
admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
(i) Whether the dispute between the parties was a classification
dispute?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29th June 2018 was
perverse for not properly adjudicating the dispute of the par-
ties with regard to classification and passing the order in
breach of the principle of natural justice?
As the respondent is represented by Learned Counsel, issuance and
service of notice of appeal are dispensed with. Advocate-on-record for the
appellant is directed to file informal paper books by 20th September 2019,
serving a copy thereof upon the advocate-on-record for the respondent at
least seven days before the date of hearing of the appeal.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  164