- (1.) On 13th August, 2019 this appeal was admitted under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, expressly keeping the point of maintainability raised by the revenue that the appeal lay before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, open by the following order:- " Mr. Das, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the service rendered by his client was essentially watch and ward service to the metro railways and it was classifiable as such. But the respondent had erroneously classified it as security service. Learned counsel submits that for the service rendered, no service tax was leviable.
(2.) Mr. Maiti for the revenue submits that this is a classification dispute to be determined by the Supreme Court.
(3.) Whether at all it is a classification dispute or not is disputed. The question has to be gone into by this Court. Only after the point of maintainability is decided can the merits be gone into by this Court.;