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: 2019-05-14

Further the learned Special Counsel for the Revenue submits that in para 27.4, Line 10, the words „the appellants contention” need to be corrected to be as “the Revenue.s contention”. We find that the same can be accepted.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-05-13

Heard both sides. We find that there has been a categorical observation by the Bench that the appellants have been regularly filing monthly ER-1 returns indicating the quantity of computers manufactured and cleared every month. Therefore there was no suppression, nevertheless of a material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. We find that when such findings are given by the Bench it is consequential that penalty under Rule 25 in respect of Appeal No. E/1045/2009 should have been set aside. We find that this is a mistake on record, therefore we are in agreement with the contention of the appellant. Secondly the submission of the appellant on the incomplete sentence at the end of para 6 are also accepted.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-10

Inasmuch as in the present appeals, the delay is more than 30 days, I find no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-09

Ld. Counsel pointed out that after the matter was heard on 27.02.2019, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat came to his knowledge which he submitted to the Tribunal vide his letter dated 04.03.2019. He argued that the said decision is a binding precedent and therefore, should have been considered though it was not submitted when the matter was finally heard but submitted later.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-09

At this stage, my attention stands drawn to note sheet order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Division Bench, transferring the matter to single Member Bench. On going through the same, it is seen that the Division Bench has only referred to the amount of duty involved and by observing that since the same is less than Rs. 2 lakhs, the matter pertains to single Member Bench. It seems that attention of the Bench was not drawn to the rate of duty involved, in which case the amount involved is of no consequence. As such, I am of the strong view that the matter needs to be heard by Division Bench.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-05-08

So far as judgment delivered in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Delhi, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.), is concerned, there also the Tribunal had not considered certain material which was very much on record and thereby it committed a mistake which was subsequently rectified by considering and appreciating the evidence which had not been considered earlier. As stated hereinabove, in the instant case, the position is absolutely different.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

He argued that HSN relies on the processes carried out on “Ores” to determine if the “Ores” have become “Concentrates” or otherwise. He argued that in their case, they had imported the product which was described as “Ore” and they had declared the same in their imported document as “Ore”. He pointed out that they had no mechanism to find out the nature of processes carried out at the supplier and located abroad. He argued that the “Concentrate” is also an “Ore”. He pointed out that there are numerous judgments where different criteria have been set for distinguish “Ore” with “Concentrate”. He argued that in this circumstance, they decided to pay the duty and interest. He argued that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Their decision regarding choice of classification between “Ore” and “Concentrate” was a genuine bonafide doubt. He argued that in these circumstances, invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified. He argued that in these circumstances, imposition of penalty and huge redemption fine is also not justified. He agreed that no refund claim of duty already paid which they have claimed as credit would be claimed. He argued that the situation was also Revenue neutral as they were entitled to Cenvat Credit as the entire CVD paid.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He pointed out that all the facts necessary for establishing that VDI and QMI are related persons have been identified in the shape of common directors, common office,mutual loans and common shareholding pattern. He pointed out that a significant amount of common infrastructure is being used. He relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of J Foundation 2015 (324) ELT 422 (S.C.) to hold that corporate veil has been lifted in the instant case. He also relied on the decision of Tribunal in following cases.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that all the buyers have admitted that they have received „coated‟ material. He argued that the sample has been tested and the same test report is applicable to all the goods. He further argued that the adjudicating authority allowed cross-examination of only one person, and on that basis allowed the appeal partly. He argued that in view of the admission of 13 different buyers, such cross examination should not have been relied.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

During investigation it was found that the primary packing of the supplies intended sale to institutional buyers contained marketing such as „railway supplies‟, „BHEL supplies‟ etc. It was also found that the MRP was not printed in respect of supplies meant for institutional buyers.