Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-05-08

Shri Prasad Paranjape, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of  the applicants submits that on the dispute involved in the present  case relates to denial of credit of input service and recovery thereof.  The applicants have already reversed the credit and considering the  amount involved and the fact that six other appeals involving identical  issue are filed before this Tribunal, the early hearing may pleased to  be granted

Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-05-08

Shri Prasad Paranjape, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellant submits that the Department is in process to decide a  protective show-cause notice for recovery of the amount of refund  which was already sanctioned, therefore there is an urgency to hear  the present matter out of turn

Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-05-07

In as much as the delay is on the lower side, and keeping in view the explanation rendered by the appellant for such delay, we condone the same and the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay is allowed

Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2018-05-04

The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No. 08/Commr/GST/HWH/Adjn/2017-18 dated 26.09.2017

Court: GSTAT Hyderabad   Date of Order: 2018-05-04

On perusal of records and considering the submissions of Ld. DR, we  do find that there has been an error that has been crept in the Final Order,  more specifically in para 4, 5th line whrein the period mentioned is incorrect  which is a typographical error. The period mentioned in para No.4, line  number 05 of the Final Order A/31545-31555/2017, dated 14.09.2017 as  “January 2006 to September 2010” shall be read as “April 2004 to  September 2010”. We also notice that on the first page of the order of the  Tribunal it is mentioned as “arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 08 to 192011,  dated 09.06.2011 passed by CCE&C, Visakhapatnam” whereas the  appeal is against “Order-in-Original No. 08 to 19-2011, dated 09.06.2011  passed by CCE&C, Visakhapatnam-II”. Accordingly, this mistake is also  rectified and the said “arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 08 to 19-2011,  dated 09.06.2011 passed by CCE&C, Visakhapatnam” may be read as “  arising out of Order-in-Original No. 08 to 19-2011, dated 09.06.2011  passed by CCE&C, Visakhapatnam-II”

Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-05-04

The reasons in the application for condonation of delay of two days in filing the appeal having been found to be satisfactory, the delay is condoned and the application allowed.

Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-05-03

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: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-05-03

After hearing both sides and perusal of records, I find  the delay has been properly explained in the application and is  acceptable. Accordingly, application of condonation of delay is  allowed and direct the registry to take the appeal on record

Court: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-05-03

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: GSTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2018-05-02

After considering the submissions made and perusal of records, we  find that the delay has been suitably justified. Accordingly, we allow the application for condonation of delay and direct the Registry to take on  record the appeal and list the same for disposal in its due course