Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST 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: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-10-21

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submitted that the activity of job work had direct nexus with the manufacture of final product and as per the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT rendered in the case of CCE Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. [2017(47) STR 79 (Tri. Del.)], where the job worker had opted to pay service tax on the job work activity not withstanding exemption contained in the Notification No.8/2005-ST dt. 01/03/2005, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied at manufacturer’s end. He further submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had paid full amount to the job worker including the service tax and had availed the credit on the valid document. The learned counsel further argued that the issue of CENVAT credit on job work charges was not specifically urged during the hearing held on 28/01/2019 before the Tribunal due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel although the issue had been part of the proceedings from the very beginning. Therefore he has prayed that the order be modified and this CENVAT credit on job work charges should also be allowed. Learned counsel has cited the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Huller Screens Manufacturing Co. Vs. CCE, Kolkata-I [2015(315) ELT 544 (Cal.)] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that in view of Rule 41 which expressly empowers the Tribunal to pass any order or to give any direction to secure the ends of justice. 


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-10-18

In contempt proceedings no direction can be issued, it shall be appropriate to leave it open to the wisdom of the Tribunal to interpret order regarding the refund of the seizure value. Tribunal is expected to dispose of the application as shall be filed by the petitioner preferably within a period of thirty days.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-10-16

According to Learned Counsel for the applicant, the appeal filed by them had been dismissed ex-parte without considering the grounds of appeal or recording the same. It is also pointed out that the order does not list out the appeal of the present applicant and it is his contention that the order does not make it clear whether the appeal of the applicant has been disposed off or not; the lack of independent finding is also been assailed.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-10-10

Heard the parties on the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue. During the course of hearing, as directed by the earlier order, Revenue has produced copy of the records containing in the file being no.IV(09)12/RAL/Prev./BHD/2013-14. The said file is retained by this Tribunal containing pages 1 to 234 alongwith a forwarding letter dated 30.09.2019 issued by Shri C.P. Goyal, Commissioner to the Asstt. Commissioner (AR) of this Tribunal and also containing note sheets from I to XIV (7 leafs).


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-10-01

As is seen from the above, the Ministry itself, while expressing opinion on the classification of the mobile phones having a number of additional features, concluded that inasmuch as the essential purpose of the mobile phone is to communicate, the additional features of having so many other functions will not convert the phones into any other item. As the goods are being marketed and being purchased by the consumers as smart phone or other similar cellular or mobile phone, the additional facilities will not convert the phones into any other item.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-10-01

I hold that the show cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR, was to be issued within the period of 90 days of receiving the offence report, and that the provisions do not intent for it to be served also within the said 90 days. Otherwise also the provision of statute has to be taken as directory when there is no apparent and intentional delay on part of the Department rather the noticee has committed the illegal act in violation of the provisions of the Act.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-09-24

In the present case availability of original invoices with the Department and those being misplaced by the Department is definitely a debatable point of fact, which otherwise was not mentioned in the appeal. Any oral submission thereof at the time of arguments is not sufficient to bring the same within the ambit of rectification. The appropriate remedy in the given circumstances is opined as that of appeal. As a result, the application in hand is held devoid of merits, accordingly, is dismissed.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-09-24

These miscellaneous applications are filed by the appellants for change of name of the company in the cause title of the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the change in company name is evidence by the Certificates of Incorporation dated 18.11.2015 and 18.7.2018 pursuant to change of name from “Strides Arcolab td.”to “Strides Pharms Science Limited” issued by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. In view of this, all the miscellaneous applications for change of cause title are allowed and Registry is directed to change the cause title from “Strides Arcolab Ltd.” to “Strides Pharma Science Limited”.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-09-24

The prayer of the Revenue for withdrawal of appeals is allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Miscellaneous Applications filed for change of cause title are also allowed. MAs (WD) are disposed accordingly.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-09-20

Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that all these appeals are having the same issue of valuation and the to be decided is whether the cost of transportation from the factory to the buyers’ premises when goods are sold on FOR basis should be included in the assessable value or otherwise and the matter has been settled by Hon.’ble Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited. This judgment was followed by this Bench in some cases. He also submits that appeal No. E/30199/2019 is also filed by them on the same issue which may also be linked and heard at an early date.