Punjab-Haryana High Court
Principal Commissioner Cgst Gurugram vs M/S Hitachi Metal India Private Limited on 8 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064222-DB
STA-14-2021 (O&M) -1-
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
STA-14-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.05.2024
.2024
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST GURUGRAM
. . . . Appellant
Vs.
M/S HITACHI METAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
****
Present: Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate for
Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel
for the appellant.
Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The
he Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of CGST,
Panchkula vs. Nestle India Limited in STA
STA-26-2019 decided on
15.02.2023 has held as under:
"At
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent
states that question of determination of the imposition of
taxability is a question which can only be considered by the
Supreme Court and he has referred to the judgment passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of
Service Tax vs. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd, 2017 (7) G.S.T.L.
(P&H) and another judgment passed in STA-23-2019
202 (P&H)
titled The Principal Commissioner vs. M/s. Raj Kishan
12.03.2020 wherein it has been
and Co., decided on 12.03.2020
consistently held that appeal to High Court is not
maintainable in a matter relating to taxability.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064222-DB
STA-14-2021 (O&M) -2-
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able
to dispute the proposition of law as laid down by the above
said judgments.
Keeping in view this fact, this appeal is dismissed
with liberty to the revenue to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law, if so advised."
2. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/s Evalueserve.com Pvt. Ltd. in STA-13--
2021 and connected matters decided on 15.12.2023, has held as under:
"7.
7. It has also been brought to our notice that
similar views have also been taken by another Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of
Bench
Service Tax vs. GECAS Services India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (39)
STR 980 and in Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
vs. Prakash AIR Freight Pvt. Ltd, 2011 (23) STR 220
(Kar.), Commissioner vs. B.A. Research In
India Ltd., 2013
(13) STR 663 and Commissioner of Central Excise and
Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore vs. TNT Ltd., 2011 (23)
STR 115 (Kar.).
8. Faced with this situation, counsels for the
Revenue also could not point out any judgment to the
contrary.
9. Keeping in view the above and the question of
law itself raised, we hold that the appeal is not
maintainable and dismiss the same. However, liberty is
granted to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, if
so desired to file the appeal before the Apex Court at the
earliest. Keeping in view that STA
STA-13-2021 stands
dismissed, other appeals would necessarily also have to be
dismissed since the Tribunal only followed its earlier
view."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064222-DB
STA-14-2021 (O&M) -3-
3. Taking into consideration the law as settled by the Division Bench in
the above
abo said cases, we find that in terms of Section 35(G) of the
Central Excise Act, 1944, appeal would not lie to the High Court and
the appeal would only lie to the Supreme Court.
4. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed with aforesaid liberty.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE
((SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
May 08,, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
