JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred under Section 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (Act of 2017) against the final Order No. 76779-76783/2023 dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata in Service Tax Appeal No. 05/2011 filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 05/Commissioner/ST/2010 dated 27.08.2010. 3. Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the instant appeal filed under Section 117 of the Act of 2017 is not maintainable and that an appeal would lie only against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 113 of the same Act in appeals filed under Section 107 or revision filed under Section 108 of the said Act. He submits that since the Appellate Tribunal under the Act of 2017 has not been constituted, an appeal would not lie under Section 117 before the High Court. He submits that in fact, appeal would lie before the Supreme Court of India under Section 35(L) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the fact that the issue to be considered in the instant case is with regard to taxability of the services rendered by the respondent. Therefore, the same is squarely covered by Section 35L (1)(b) of the Act of 1944. In support of his submission, he relies upon the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commissioner of CGST, Guwahati vs. Oil India Ltd. 2023 (385) E.L.T. 834 (Gau) : 2023 (8) CENTAX 43 (Gau). 4. Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel submits that the issue involved in the instant case is that the respondent had rendered services, which is taxable as per the definition under Section 65(31) of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994. The activities of the respondent, therefore, clearly falls under the category of Consulting Engineering Services as also provided under the show-cause Notice dated 22.12.2004 and therefore, the decision of the Commissioner of Customs as well as CESTAT can be challenged in appeal before the High Court. The learned counsel therefore submits that the appeal is maintainable and should be heard on merits. 5. The learned counsel therefore submits that the appeal is maintainable and should be heard on merits. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have perused the materials available on record. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case what is required to be addressed is with regard to the maintainability of the appeal itself since the respondent has raised an objection in this regard. Under Section 117 of the Act of 2017, an appeal lies to the High Court against any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the appeal may be admitted by the High Court subject to there being satisfaction that the case involves substantial question of law. The definition of Appellate Tribunal is found under Section 2(9) of the Act of 2017 which again refers to Section 109 of the same Act. Section 109 provides for constitution of Appellate Tribunal and Benches thereof by the Government to be known as Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal for hearing appeals under the order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. No material has been placed before us to show that an Appellate Tribunal had been constituted in terms of the said provision. There also cannot be any dispute to the fact that an appeal to this Court under Section 117 would have to be an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 113 of the Act of 2017. 7. Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a provision for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. Section 35L of the Act of 1944 may be abstracted below for ready perusal: “35L. Appeal to Supreme Court: (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from: (a) any judgment of the High Court delivered: (i) in an appeal made under section 35G. (ii) on a reference made under section 35G by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003. (iii) on a reference made under section 35H, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after passing of the judgment, the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. (iii) on a reference made under section 35H, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after passing of the judgment, the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. (b) any order passed [before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal] by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposed of assessment.” (2) For the purposes of this Chapter, the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty shall include the determination of taxability or excisability of goods for the purpose of assessment. 8. From the above abstract, it may be seen that apart from the orders passed by the High Court in an appeal filed under Section 35G or a reference under Section 35H, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. Further, for the purpose of determining any question having relation to the rate of duty, the determination of taxability or excisability of goods would be included for the purpose of assessment. As may be noticed, the core issue which requires determination in the instant case is as to whether the services rendered by the respondent is taxable. 9. Challenge made in Commissioner of CGST, Guwahati vs. Oil India Limited (supra) was to the decision of CESTAT which held that the respondent-assessee was a seller and not a service provider and hence, in absence of service provider/service recipient relationship, there could not be any question of levy of service tax and therefore, the demand could not be sustained. Accordingly, the demand of service tax interest and penalty raised by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the demand of service tax interest and penalty raised by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside. This Court, upon considering various other authorities on the subject, held that the appeal to the High Court against the order passed by CESTAT, Kolkata was barred by virtue of Section 35G(1) read with Section 35L of the 1944 Act, since the issue involved in the appeals was regarding the applicability of service tax interest and penalty on transportation of goods to pipelines/Conduit Services undertaking by the respondent assessee and if the same were to be challenged, it can only be resorted to by filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised for maintainability of the appeal was sustained. 10. Coming back to the present case, upon having an overall consideration of the issue raised including the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant, we are of the considered view that since the issue of taxability of the services rendered by the respondent is the issue to be decided and therefore, the same squarely falls within the purview of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act of 1944. 11. The appeal is therefore dismissed with liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy as is available in law.