Goods & Services Tax
GST Case Laws

Search GST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Order: 2019-11-21

After considering the submission that the issue is covered, early hearing is allowed. Registry to list the appeal for hearing on 13.1.2020 along with Appeal No.ST/42037/2018.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-11-20

It is seen from the above application for rectification of mistake filed on 27.09.2019 that the Ld. Counsel for the applicant has inter alia enclosed a copy of the order in the case of M/s. Teknomec (supra) which is dated 09.07.2019, but the date from which the said order was made available is not forthcoming.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-11-19

On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellant ought to have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal has been however filed before this forum within a period of 60 days’ time. Since the appellant has filed appeal before the wrong forum within the prescribed time limit, the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to consider the request of the appellant to condone the delay of filing the appeal in case the appellant files application for condonation of delay. The miscellaneous application for withdrawing the appeal is allowed. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Order to be issued by dasti.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-07-08

It is observed that the Registry has issued a defect memo dated 22.05.2019 to the appellant pointed out that balance pre-deposit challan to be submitted and to report compliance on 10.06.2019. But, on 10.06.2019 none appeared for the appellant and a last opportunity was given to them to submit the challans for balance payment of pre-deposit, by 08.07.2019.


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.