Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws





Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order



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

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2020-01-20

Now coming to the issue of delay, we observed that the appellant was struggling with banks and various forums like under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002, Debts Recovery Tribunal etc. and subsequently, after sale of their property, they have paid dues to the banks as well as they have paid entire Central Excise dues. Therefore, the delay is justified. We also find that the ends of justice shall be met if the appeals are decided on merit particularly, in the circumstances when the appellant have paid the entire dues. We also did not see any prejudice to the Revenue since the entire dues have been paid.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-01-15

After hearing the rival contention, perusing the final order and the impugned application, we are of the opinion as follows: As far as the typographical error impressed upon is concerned, we observe that para-8 of the impugned final order reads as follows However, shifting of overhead cables/wires or along side roads for any reason as widening/renovation of the roads is specifically not taxable as per entry No. 1 of the said Circular. Resultantly, the demand confirmed for the same is held to have wrongly confirmed. The same is, therefore, held liable to be set aside. The order to that extent is upheld.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-01-13

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant, it has been submitted that the impugned appeal was disposed off vide the Final Order No. 58284-58247/2017 dated 4 December, 2017 due to issue involved in the appeal to have been sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, liberty to the appellant was given to come again after having final verdict from the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant has requested for recalling the said order and restoring the impugned appeal for the sole purpose of availing the scheme of Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 as announced by the Department vide Finance Act, 2019. Though the Department has raised the objection for considering the said request, but we are of the opinion that restoration is requested not for final disposal of the issue involved. Thus no question for any decision of merits can be the purpose, in case the request of the impugned application is accepted. The restoration is prayed purely for availing the benefit of scheme announced by the Department with an intent to settle the matter in Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 with the sole motive of quickly resolving the dispute. We do not find any pre-judice to have been caused to the Department while accepting the impugned request. As a result thereof, the applications stand allowed. Appeals stand restored to their original numbers for giving time to the applicant-appellant to avail / apply to the Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2020-01-09

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has not considered the decisions of Friends Trading Company (supra). Regarding the doubt mention of involvement of TRA in this case, we do not find this to be any relevant point so as to treats that an error apparent on face of record as in the order portion no specific finding about the TRA in the said Final Order. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue and, therefore, the same stand dismissed.

Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Order: 2020-01-09

From the perusal of the application it appears that as far as the corrigendum dated 28.09.2016, the same appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of the Department and the same, thus, stands corrected as per prayer made to be issued by Additional Commissioner of Customs in place of Commissioner of Customs.

Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2020-01-07

The learned advocate appearing for the assessee submits that consequent to the said order passed by the Tribunal, they approached the Revenue for settlement of the dispute in terms of SABKA VISHWAS SCHEME. However, Revenue took a view that since the matter stands remanded, the entire dues raised in respect of the show cause notices gets revived and the total tax dues have to be considered as Rs.1.40 crores. The appellant’s contention is that since 60 lakhs has already been dropped, with no appeal by the Revenue, the same should not be considered as tax dues. The learned advocate wants a clarification on the said final order to the extent that the same dealt with only an amount of Rs.80 lakhs, which was the disputed amount and as such the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority only for 80 lakhs.

Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-01-06

The only error apparent sought to be pointed out by the applicant, in his application is vis a vis one decision passed by one of us sitting in ingle member bench. It is submitted that contrary view was taken in that decision. Though this decision was never relied or submitted by either sides in appeal or during the course of arguments or in the submission made it is an error apparent on record and needs to be rectified.

Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2020-01-03

We find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the agreement entered by the appellant with NHAI at clause 1.10.2 [under taxes and duties clauses] wherein the liability to discharge/ deduct the income tax from the consultant, sub-consultant and personnel was on the part of NHAI which they have complied with and it is also undisputed that appellant had received the amount of consideration of the contract and discharged the service tax liability on such an amount.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-12-30

Learned Counsel also drew our attention to the order dated 20th November 2017 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vipul Overseas Pvt Ltd., vs Commissioner of Customs -2018 (359) E.L.T. 646 (DEL) wherein Hon’ble High Court dealing with similar situation in Para 6 had directed Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits including question of jurisdiction of the officers of DRI to issue the Show Cause Notice, without influenced by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd., which has been stayed by the Apex Court.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-12-20

After hearing both sides and considering the grounds taken in the COD applications, we condone the delay of 7 days and allow the applications. Defect also rectified. List appeals in due course.