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 Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-07-10

This Tribunal through Final Order No. 71081 of 2019 dated 04 June, 2019 upheld the Order-In-Appeal No. 20-CUS/APPL/LKO/2019 dated 23 January, 2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, GST and Central Excise, Lucknow through which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. 15/ADC/2018 dated 14 August, 2018 through which 19,670 kg of betel nuts valued at Rs 52,12,550/-(Rupees fifty two lakhs twelve thousand five hundred and fifty only) were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs 12 lakhs. In addition there was confiscation of vehicle and imposition of penalties on other appellants. Since the said Order–In-Original was set aside by learned Commissioner (Appeals) through said Order-In-Appeal dated 23 January, 2019, which was upheld by this Tribunal, the applicant of the present miscellaneous application became entitled for unconditional release of said goods on passing of said Order-In-Appeal dated 23 January, 2019. Instead of honouring the Order-In-Appeal, Revenue preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed and said Order-In-Appeal dated 23 January, 2019 was upheld through said Final order dated 04 June, 2019. As per the miscellaneous application, the said goods have not been released to applicant Shri Harshit Garg. Revenue through Letter No. VIII (25)445/Commr Appl/2019 dated 28 June, 2019 informed the Authorized Representative of Revenue that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow has approved to issue said Letter in which it is stated that the said Final Order dated 04 June, 2019 is under review by the Competent Authority. It was stated in said Miscellaneous Application that Revenue is not releasing the subject betel nuts on the pretext that Revenue intends to file appeal before Hon’ble High Court. It was informed by Authorized Representative of Revenue that Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow is Mr. Ved Prakash Shukla. It is made clear that even if Revenue wishes to file appeal before Hon’ble High Court, there is no requirement of keeping the goods with Revenue when at two stages they have lost the case. As on today Revenue does not have any Authority to retain the subject goods. We, therefore, direct Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow to unconditionally release subject goods forthwith and in any case before 12th July, 2019. In case the subject goods are not released by 12th July, 2019, Shri Ved Prakash Shukla, Commissioner shall remain present in person in this Court at 10:30 AM on 23rd July, 2019.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-07-10

Keeping in view the said adjudication and having all regard to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we hereby accept the same outcome for the present application. Resultantly, the final order of 19.06.2017 is hereby recalled and the appeal stands alive for the final hearing. In the given circumstances, request for release of the Bank Guarantee is opined premature. The Misc. Application, accordingly, stands partly allowed. The matter be listed for final hearing on 08.08.2019.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-07-09

After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the delay caused in filing the appeal is not deliberate and intentional. The said delay has been satisfactory explained to us. Accordingly, miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is allowed. Appeal to come up for final hearing in due course.


Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-07-08

In any case and in any view of the matter, we find that the appeals themselves are listed today for final disposal. As such we direct the appellants’ jurisdictional authorities to await the outcome of the Tribunal’s decision and not to take any coercive action against the appellant for recovery of the dues.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-08

Explaining the delay, the learned Advocate for the Appellants submit that the said delay has occurred due to the fact that the Managing Director Shri Shriram Malik was seriously ill and underwent treatment of Hepatitis E, (incurable disease). During the relevant period, he was admitted to three different hospitals and all along bed ridden. They have enclosed the copies of necessary medical certificates, doctor’s prescriptions, etc. The learned Advocate further submitted that after the Managing Director became reasonably fit to attend the office in May 2018, they have initiated necessary steps for filing the appeals. It is her contention that the delay was bonafide and solely on account of prolonged sickness and treatment of the Director Shri Shriram Malik, who is conversant with this matter.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-08

Explaining the delay, the learned Advocate for the Appellants submit that the said delay has occurred due to the fact that the Managing Director Shri Shriram Malik was seriously ill and underwent treatment of Hepatitis E, (incurable disease). During the relevant period, he was admitted to three different hospitals and all along bed ridden. They have enclosed the copies of necessary medical certificates, doctor’s prescriptions, etc. The learned Advocate further submitted that after the Managing Director became reasonably fit to attend the office in May 2018, they have initiated necessary steps for filing the appeals. It is her contention that the delay was bonafide and solely on account of prolonged sickness and treatment of the Director Shri Shriram Malik, who is conversant with this matter.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-07-04

With above order of the Supreme Court we are of the view that when  even the highest court of the country cannot decide the matter in the division bench and matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. In our view, the de-novo adjudication should be passed only after the outcome of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Larger Bench decision, therefore, we have consciously given the direction to the adjudicating authority which in our view does not suffer from any apparent mistake. Moreover, when this bench after considering all the submissions made by both the sides given finding which, if does not suit to parties that cannot amount to apparent error.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-03

Heard on the stay applications filed by the Appellant Department seeking stay on execution of orders of refund that were allowed by the Commissioner (Appelas) by order No. MKK/397-398/RGDAPP/18-19 dtd. 21-12-2018. Learned DR for the Appellant submits that unless stay is granted, the department would incur financial loss as it has a strong case on merit but in producing a bank statement, wherein refunds have already been shown as credited to the Appellant’s account, Learned Counsel for the respondent company submitted that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has already been given effect for which stay application has become redundant.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-07-03

Heard on the COD applications. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that delay was 47 days and ground of delay could be attributable to the engagement of staff  uring mandatory Audit procedure for which he received the OIA just before the due date of filing of appeal was due. Part  of the delay was also due to his own engagement in other cases for which appeal Memo for all 3 appeals could not be prepared and presented on time.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-07-03

Shri K. Sivakumar, learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that both the contracts are dated 24-8-2007 and have been made operational simultaneously in order to make facility for the service recipient. He thus argued that both these contracts have to be read as one in view of the judgment dated 28-2-2010 given by ITAT in the case of appellant itself wherein it was held that such contracts are required to be considered as one composite contract only.