Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Kolkata South Commissionerate vs. M/S Ultra Tech Cement Limited

Held

The High Court, upon perusal of Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, held that the appeal preferred by the department should have been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L, Sub-section (2) of the Act. The Court did not delve into the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant regarding the service tax demand, the validity of CA certificates, or the correctness of the Tribunal's order. The reasoning was purely procedural, based on the appropriate forum for appeal as stipulated in the Act. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the department was dismissed on the ground that it was filed before the wrong forum. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the dismissal was based on jurisdiction.

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Kolkata South Commissionerate (appellant) filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court against an order passed by the Learned Tribunal. There was a delay of 263 days in filing the appeal, which the High Court condoned after being satisfied with the explanation provided. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act. The respondent is M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited. The dispute pertains to a demand of service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service payable under the reverse charge mechanism.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the demand of service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service as defined under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994, payable under the reverse charge mechanism? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Learned Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in observing that the adjudicating authority, without commenting on the correctness of CA certificates, completely brushed aside such certificates, when the adjudicating authority had examined the documents submitted with the CA certificates and found that their correctness could not be verified based on those documents? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the decision of the Learned Tribunal is legal and proper in observing that independent CA Certificates were issued based on verification of books of accounts, when these certificates were not supported by documentary evidence for verification? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the learned Tribunal was correct and justified in setting aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of CA Certificates without proper verification of the documents? (Question of mixed law and fact) 5. Whether the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the Learned Tribunal is perverse, bad in law, and liable to be set aside? (Question of law) Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise): The Learned Tribunal erred in setting aside the demand and in its observations regarding the CA certificates, suggesting that the adjudicating authority did not properly examine the documents and CA certificates. The appellant argued that the CA certificates lacked documentary support for verification. Contentions of the Respondent (M/s Ultra Tech Cement Limited): The respondent relied on the CA certificates to dispute the demand. The judgment does not explicitly record the respondent's arguments on the specific issues raised by the appellant, other than implicitly supporting the Tribunal's order.