The Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise Commissionerate vs. M/S Shree Hindustan Fabricators

Held

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable before it. The Court reasoned that in view of the subject-matter and the issue decided by the Tribunal, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, the High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of maintainability. The Revenue was advised to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum. The specific findings of the CESTAT regarding Business Auxiliary Service and ECIS classification were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.

Facts

The Revenue, Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court against an order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had partly allowed an appeal filed by the respondent, M/s. Shree Hindustan Fabricators. The dispute pertained to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, with a demand of Rs.1,23,856/- sustained by the CESTAT in respect of sales commission received by the respondent from three companies. The CESTAT found that the Show Cause Notice had sufficiently identified the services as Business Auxiliary Services and that no prejudice was caused to the respondent. However, the demand under the ECIS (Erection, Commissioning or Installation) category was set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) erred in its findings that the activities undertaken by M/s. Shree Hindustan Fabricators cannot be classified under ECIS (Erection, Commissioning or Installation)? The Revenue argued that the CESTAT erred in its findings regarding the classification of services under ECIS. The respondent argued that the specific sub-clause of Business Auxiliary Service under which tax was demanded had not been identified, though the CESTAT found clarity in the Show Cause Notice. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent on the ECIS classification, but it notes the CESTAT's finding that the demand under ECIS was set aside.