Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login Form

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 400/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2018-07-10

Inasmuch as the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is in favour of the respondent and the Revenue has given no justifiable reason for staying the operation of the same. I reject the stay petitions filed by the Revenue and list the appeals itself for final disposal on 13.08.2018.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-07-10

On matter being called nobody appeared. I have accordingly gone through the application, which is for restoring the Final Order No.71571/2017 dated 21/11/2017 vide which the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellants have submitted that their factory was shifted to new location and as such they did not receive the intimation of hearing. They have now placed on record their new address.


Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2018-07-10

Revenue has filed early hearing of stay application. As the said application has already been listed today for hearing, therefore, the applicant filed for early hearing of stay application has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.


Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2018-07-10

The applicant has filed an application for early hearing of the appeal on the ground that if early hearing of their appeal is not granted there will a great prejudice to them as they are claiming area based exemption under Notification No. 49/50-2003-CE dated 10.06.2003.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-10

Ld.Counsel Shri V.S. Manoj appearing on behalf of the appellant submits  that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 31.03.2017. However, the  appeal could not be filed in time since the person who was handling the service tax  matters, left the organization w.e.f. 01.02.2017 and the receipt of the Order-in- Original was not brought to the notice of the management. In the meantime, proceedings were also initiated against the appellants under the Securitisation and  Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.  Their bankers had also sought for regularisation of accounts and closure of secured  overdraft and appellant’s account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by  the bank. For these reasons, appellant was totally involved in restructuring the  business. He submits that they have a good case on merits. As against the total  demand of Rs.1,07,04,337/-, an amount of Rs.82,45,403/- was already paid by them  and appropriated in the order. For these reasons of financial stress, he prayed that  the delay may be condoned. 


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-10

On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri T. Ramesh submits that the  impugned Order-in-Original dt. 24.04.2017 was passed consequent upon the  directions of the Hon’ble High Court dated 20.06.2016 passed in W.P. No.23556 of  2013 and 14795 of 2016 for de novo adjudication. He submits that since identical  issue involved in the present appeal was pending before the High Court in W.P. No.23618 of 2013 and W.P.No.32274 of 2015, appellant thought it proper to file a  writ petition against the impugned order. Accordingly, they filed a Writ Petition  No.18354 of 2017 against the impugned order dt. 24.04.2017 which was dismissed  by the Hon’ble High Court on 19.07.2017. On Writ Appeal against the said order,  the Hon’ble High Court upheld its earlier order dt. 19.07.2017, directing the  appellant to file appeal before Tribunal. The Ld.counsel submits that the appeal  was prepared and filed before this Tribunal on 30.10.2017 causing a delay of 87  days. He submits that delay in filing the present appeal is neither wilful nor wanton  and but only due to the above factum of filing writ petitions and writ appeals before  Hon’ble High Court. 


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-07-09

Applicant filed this application for restoration of appeal. Shri Dhaval K. Shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that appellant could not be presented at the time of hearing for the reason that concerned person dealing with excise matters was on leave. Therefore, neither the adjournment could be sought nor anybody appeared for hearing


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-07-09

None appeared on behalf of the applicants. On perusal of the record, I find that the reasons given for delay is that though the order was received by the accountant of the applicants but the same was misplaced. The applicant could find out the order in the month of February 2018, therefore there is delay in filing the appeals.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2018-07-09

The appeals are listed for mention. On perusal of the record, I find that all the appeals are on identical issue and the total amount involved is more than Rs. 10 Lakh. Considering the fact that amount involved is more than Rs. 10 Lakh, the appeals are admitted and are directed to be listed for regular hearing.


Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2018-07-09

It is a case of suspension of Customs Broker licence and due to the act of the respondent, livelihood of the applicant is affected, therefore, we allow the application of early hearing and list the appeal for final disposal on 20.08.2018