The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Delhi South Commissionerate, against the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), holding that disputes involving taxability of services are not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul ruled that such appeals must instead be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.
The department had challenged a September 16, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT), which held that BEE was not liable to pay service tax on fees collected under: “Standard & Labelling (Registration and Labelling Fee)” and “Processing Fee”.
The department attempted to classify these activities under “Technical Inspection and Certification Service” and bring them within the service tax net under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT, however, ruled that BEE was discharging statutory functions under parliamentary mandate and collecting pre-notified regulatory fees, which could not be treated as taxable services. The Tribunal relied on its own earlier rulings covering prior assessment periods.
Before entering the merits, BEE raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the dispute concerned taxability of services. Under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, appeals involving taxability must be filed directly before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 35G.
The department contended that the Tribunal had ignored statutory amendments and that the appeal was maintainable.
The Court held that authoritative precedent clearly bars High Court jurisdiction in matters involving taxability determinations.
The Bench upheld the preliminary objection and disposed of the appeal as not maintainable, without examining the merits of the service tax liability issue.
However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. Seek condonation of delay for the time spent pursuing the matter before the High Court.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any view on the substantive tax dispute.
Case Details
Case Title: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI, SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE Versus M/S BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Citation: JURISHOUR-156-HC-2026(Del)
Case No.: CM APPL. 4853/2026 (exemption)
Date: 26/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Atul Tripathi, Senior Standing Counsel
Counsel For Respondent: Preetam Singh, Advocate
