Court: High Court of Madras Date of Order: 2018-01-03
When the matter was listed on 12.12.2017, on that day, on behalf of the second respondent, the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Madurai, has filed his counter-affidavit. This Court has taken note of the contents of the counter-affidavit and in paragraph No.3 observed that “in view of the fore-goings, it is represented on behalf of the second respondent/the Union of India that the petitioner's prayer No.(a) to (d) have been complied with. However, the petitioner, who appeared in person, informs this Court that the prayer No.(d) for increasing the flying squad in State Level, District Level, Zonal Level to monitor the movement of goods and E-Way Bills has not been answered in a proper manner by the second respondent/the Union of India
On perusal of records, we find that the delay has been justified and the reasons given by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal are acceptable. Accordingly, we condone the delay and direct the registry to take the appeal on record and list the same for disposal in its due course.
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
When the matter was called up for hearing it is observed that the entire claim amount against which appeal was preferred by the department is outside the scope of continuance of litigation as per Litigation Policy of litigation policy of Central Board of Excise & Customs vide F. No. 390/MISC/163/2010/JC dated 17th December 2015 supplemented with amended Notification vide F. No. 390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 4th April 2018 and 11th July 2018 which has increased the threshold monetary limit up to `20,00,000/-. Continuance of this case which involves an amount of `15,40,301/- would yield no fruitful result, when an withdrawal application is filed by the department in obedience to the Notification. In view of the fact of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in conformity to the new litigation policy.
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-06-29
The appellant M/s Kagaz Packaging has brought this appeal against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) in refusing to condone delay of 21 days in filing appeal before him and not going to the merit of the case concerning imposition of excise duty on packaging material used for export of foods along with interest and penalty awarded by the first adjudicating authority on the ground that appellant failed to produce rewarehousing certificate from the concerned authority against clearance of nil rate of duty under the cover of ARE-3.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-07-25
The Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the issue is prima facie covered by the Ruling of this Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. V/s CCE & ST, Raipur in Appeal Nol. ST/54276/2017, Final Order No. 50878/2018 dated 22nd February, 2018.
Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-07-25
The issue relates to dispute as regards liability to pay Service Tax on intellectual property services under Reverse Charge Mechanism being service imported by the appellant assessee from France, against import for manufacture of aluminium products. The amount under dispute is 10 Crore approximately.
Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-07-24
We agree to the submissions made by the Learned Departmental Representative and hold that appeals raising the same question can be disposed of by a common order. Accordingly, we allowed the application for clubbing of matter direct the Registry to connect the appeal No. ST/635/2009 along with appeal No. ST/704/2009 and list both appeals for disposal on 07.08.2018.
Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-07-24
When the matter was called out, it was seen from the records that dispute is outside the scope of continuance as per litigation policy of Central Board of Excise & Customs vide F. No. 390/MISC/163/ 2010/ JC dated 17th December 2015, wherein monetary limit for filing appeal has been enhanced from `5 lakhs to `10 lakhs and pending litigations below this threshold were directed to be withdrawn. Amount in dispute is only `9,66,295/-.
Date of Order:
On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Consultant, Shri S. Ramachandran, submitted that the Order-in-Appeal, though claimed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise to have already been sent to the appellant’s office on 19.05.2017, was actually received by the appellants on 12.02.2018. He submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton but only due to the above reasons.
Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-07-23
After perusing the materials on record and the accompanying affidavit, we find that the delay was caused primarily due to the consultant misplacing the file pertaining to the subject litigation and the same only being traced during the first week of April, 2018.