Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-06-27
The issue involved in the present appeal pertains to admissibility of CENVAT Credit in respect of Service Tax charged on Insurance Premium paid by banks to Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC), a subsidiary of Reserve Bank of India for providing mandatory insurance coverage to the deposit of customers. During hearing of the appeal, it has been brought to the notice of this Bench that contradictory findings are given by Division Benches of CESTAT. In the case of DGB Bank Ltd. vs. CCE, Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai [2017 (6) GSTL 479(Tri-Mum)] = 2017-TIOL-2849-CESTAT-MUM and Final Order No. 50877/2018 dated 9/3/18, in case of M/s. Punjab National Bank vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Bhopal = 2018-TIOL-1395-CESTAT-DEL, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax = 2019-TIOL-558-CESTAT-DEL, the findings were given in favour of the Assessee Appellant Banking Institution but in Final Order no. A/85281-85290/2019 dated 12/02/2019, while disposing of twelve appeals, Division Bench of CESTAT-Mumbai had dealt with admissibility of the credit on tax collected towards insurance premium paid to DICGC and held the same to be inadmissible as the entire deposit scheme does not fall within the definition of service. In this circumstance, there is a need for bringing constituency in the matter in dispute by way of constitution of a larger Bench. Hon’ble President, CESTAT is requested to constitute a larger Bench which may bring clarity to the following points of law
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-05-14
This application for condonation of delay is filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Consultantfor the appellant submits that they had received the order of the first appellate authority late but are unable to establish the exact date on which they received the impugned order. Therefore, they filed an application for condonation of delay reckoning the date of the order of the first appellate authority as the date of receipt.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-10
It is submitted that to implement the Energy Efficient Expansion of the Sugar Mill of the appellant that the appellant purchased the impugned structures to be installed for the fabrication of plant and machinery and thus, the structures purchased were not merely the staging structures, but was actually the sugar machinery, and thus, were falling under Chapter 84. The structure purchased being the capital goods that the appellant has rightly availed the Cenvat Credit. It is submitted that the adjudicating authorities below have overlooked that the impugned structures are the components/ spares/ accessories of the sugar machinery of the appellant.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-03-26
These two applications for Rectification of Mistake are filed by the assessee and the revenue against final order A/30137/2019 dated 29.01.2019. Heard both sides and perused the records.
Court: GSTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-03-14
I am informed about the Instructions dated 11.07.2018 issued by the C.B.E. & C. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 fixing monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal. The monetary limit has been enhanced to Rs. 20 lakhs through the said Instructions. Further, the said instructions clarified that the said instructions will apply to all pending cases.
Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-02-20
At this stage, the applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2019-02-11
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) revenue has further filed the Appeal. I have heard Shri P.R. Gupta, Ld. DR for the Department. Nobodyappeared for the respondent.
Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-02-07
The ld.C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellant/applicant, submits that the said additional grounds were inadvertently left to be included at the time of filing of the appeal. She, however, claims that these grounds, mostly on the facts of case, are very important in respect of their appeal filed before the Tribunal.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-01-23
On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran submitted that in para 8.1 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has analyzed the first ground of rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). Though the Tribunal held that the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct, had directed that the appellant is not required to file declaration as per Circular dated 19.1.2010. He adverted to show cause notice and submitted that the issue with regard to eligibility of credit on the ground of nexus is only Rs.7,27,697/-. In fact, it is not clear from para 8.1 of the impugned final order whether the said issue that has been remanded to the adjudicating authority is limited to amount of Rs.7,27,697/- or whether it takes in the entire refund claim. He therefore prayed for rectification by way of clarification.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-01-23
It is submitted by the ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy that the amount involved is more than Rs.6 crores. The ld. counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appearing for the respondent-appellant submitted that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal as reported in 2018-TIOL-2838-CESTAT-AHM which was followed by the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case. He therefore prayed for granting early hearing as well as to link the matter along with appeal No. E/41126/2018 for disposal.