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 Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-06-28

The findings as recorded in para 6 and 11 are factually incorrect as they have urged several other ground elaborated in their appeal memo. In fact they had not conceded any of the grounds referred to in their appeal memo.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-06-24

After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the grounds taken in the COD application, though we do not find any concrete ground to condone such an inordinate delay of 362 days, by considering the nature of activities of the appellant and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay but subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each appeal, within a month. List on 24/07/2019 for ascertaining compliance.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-06-21

Today when the rectification of mistake applications are listed, the appellant appeared in person and submitted that he had heart attack, brain hemmorhage and was undergoing treatment for long time and could not appear during the hearing date and also that could not file application for rectification of mistake within time


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-06-20

On perusal of records, it is seen that appellant had in fact filed an application for extension of time on 14.08.2013 in the nature of an ROA application. The said application was posted for hearing on 18.11.2013. Meanwhile, the appeal came to be listed on 10.09.2013 for compliance of pre deposit and was dismissed for non compliance of pre deposit. Taking note of these facts together with the submission that the appellant has now paid up the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, we allow the application for restoration of appeal filed by the appellant. However, since there has been huge delay on the part of the appellant to comply with the pre deposit, we are of the opinion that the appellant has to be put on terms. The application for restoration of appeal will stand allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the appellant to the Revenue on or before 10.07.2019. On failure to comply with the direction to pay cost, the application for Restoration of Appeal will stand dismissed without any further notice.


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-06-19

After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the Order-in-Original was passed on 10.05.2016 and the appellants/applicants have filed their appeals on 18.01.2019. These matters were listed before this Bench earlier and the ld.D.R. for the Revenue, was asked to enquire whether any recovery proceedings against the appellants/applicants were initiated by the Department since substantial period had already lapsed before filing the appeal. On enquiry from the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), it was intimated that there is nothing on record showing that any proceedings were initiated against the appellants/applicants for  recovery of the penalties imposed.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-06-14

On a perusal of the appeal record, I do not find any application by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit nor has the appellant furnished any waiver order of the higher forum of the pre-deposit.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-06-07

Accordingly, the applicants are directed to deposit the entire adjudged dues confirmed in the original orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and to report compliance on 10.07.2019. The appeal shall be restored back to file subject to receipt of the compliance report by the next date of hearing. It is made clear that if this order has not been complied within the stipulated time frame, the applications for restoration of appeals shall automatically be dismissed.


Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-06-04

Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Deputy Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of Revenue has submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) through impugned order has set aside the said Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2018 through which 19,670 kg. of betel nuts were confiscated under section 111(b) and (d) Customs Act, 1962 and an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.12.00 Lakhs was provided. He has stated that if the order of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) dated 23.01.2019 is allow to operate it will cause loss of Government revenue. He has relied on the grounds mentioned in the grounds of appeal.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-06-04

As per the facts of the present case, the period involved is 22.04.2003 to 09.06.2003. As per the impugned order the relevant finding is reproduced below: “They have contended that the impugned SCN is invalid, unlawful and unsustainable in law and they submitted several grounds and case laws in their support but the same is not acceptable because the investigation revealed that they had used unlawful way to show exports and to complete their export obligations by procuring lower quantity goods by showing procurement of raw material/ finished goods in their in-bond register which in fact found to be a paper transactions only to show payment by cheques but to get the amount back in cash and to show vehicle nos. in documents which never had been used for transportation. Thus, I hold that the SCN is a valid and lawful and as such the case laws referred in their reply do not find applicability in this case.”


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-06-03

The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either.” Nothing as regards the express knowledge of the appellant has been brought out by the Revenue. In these circumstances, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors Pvt. Limited (supra), the demand in so far as extended period of limitation is set-aside. Consequently, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also set-aside. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.