- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27922-DB CEA No. 39 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2024 BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.ARAVIND V. CHAVAN., ADVOCATE) AND: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ANAND N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27922-DB CEA No. 39 of 2024 THIS CEA / CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01.05.2024 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.20327/2024 BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU (A) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.20378-23079/2024 DATED 30.04.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINALS DATED 25.01.2017 AND 05.04.2017 ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX SOUTH (B) TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard Sri.Arvind.V.Chavan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and learned counsel Sri.Anand.N appearing for the respondent – Assessee. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27922-DB CEA No. 39 of 2024 2. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of this appeal by the learned counsel for the respondent under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that in view of the order impugned, an appeal would lie under Section 35(L) of the Act aforesaid before the Supreme Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the fact that the order of imposition of tax by the impugned order is already under challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal.Nos.8486-8487/2024 (Indian Institute of Management V/s The Commissioner of Service Tax II) in which an interim order is also in operation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Customs Excise and Service Tax, Belgaum V/s Jindal South West Steel Limited reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 165 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27922-DB CEA No. 39 of 2024 (Kar.). In the said judgment, this Court has observed as follows: 5. To the extent confirming the demand the assessee has already approached the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act and they are numbered as Civil Appeal Nos 3393- 3396/2010 In fact the authorities also held, in the facts of the case the imposition of penalty is bad and they have set aside that portion of the demand. The Revenue has preferred the Appeal No. 214/2010 challenging that portion of the order which disallowed on the ground of limitation. In the other four connected cases the Revenue has challenged the setting aside the penalty. 6. The question of bar of limitation as well as setting aside the penalty is dependant on the leviability of excise duty on the impugned product. That is an issue which is to be decided by the Apex Court and the Apex Court is already seized of the matter. As the findings on that issue would have direct bearing in deciding the issues arisen in these appeals and all these issues arise out of the very same order, it is settled law that these issues cannot be bifurcated and decided by this court. It is a composite order, this issue also has to be decided by Apex Court and Revenue has to file appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act before the Apex Court. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. 7. Therefore, these appeals are rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27922-DB CEA No. 39 of 2024 approach the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Act. 5. Copies of the aforesaid judgments have been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent and the copies of the same have been served by him on the learned counsel for the Revenue. 6. When confronted, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, in all fairness, submitted that liberty may be granted to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed and liberty as sought by the Revenue is granted. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28