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 Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-04-30

Salary paid to Foreman/ Khalasi: Ld. Counsel argued that they were also engaged in supply of foreman/ khalasi to M/s Essar Steel Ltd. The said foreman/ khalasi were their employees and were supplied to M/s Essar Steel Ltd. on temporary basis. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. 2014 (34) STR 610 (Tri.-Amd.), wherein it has been held that said taxable mill was not engaged primarily in recruitment or supply of manpower and therefore, cannot be said to be a manpower supply recruitment agency. He pointed out that the said decision has been upheld by Gujarat High Court as reported in 2014 (35) STR 496 (Guj.).


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-26

Per contra, the learned A.R. for the Revenue submits that certificate now produced by the Appellant in support of fulfilment of export obligation was not produced before the Adjudicating authority and has been procured subsequent to the order of the Adjudicating Larsen-18674717230419MM  authority. It is his contention that, therefore, the case may be remanded to the Adjudicating authority to verify the claim of the Appellant. 


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-26

Prima facie when there is no appeal and stay order,the appellant should have deposited the entire amount including service tax, interest and penalty, adjudged against them by the orders of lower authority before making any application for restoration of the appeal. They have not done so and have filed this restoration application after making payments as per stay order which is no longer there as the appeal itself has been dismissed.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-04-24

In the circumstances, we adjourn these matters to 5 July, 2019. The Revenue if so advised may obtain appropriate clarification from the Hon’ble High Court of its order in the case of Paresh K. Daftary. We are also informed that some of the connected matters are lying under defect status. We direct the Registry to inform the parties to remove the defects and further to list all the defective matters connected herewith, even if defects are not removed, before the Bench on 5 July, 2019 for passing of appropriate orders. The Counsels appearing in these matters are also requested to assist the Registry in identifying such matters lying in the defect status.


Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-04-24

After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned Advocate Shri Kamal Jeet Singh for appellant and learned A.R. Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner for revenue, we note that the entire case of revenue is based upon the comparison of figures, as pointed out in the balance sheet with the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns. The appellant has explained that such difference has occurred on account of the accounting system as per the Income Tax Law, which explanation, in principle, stands accepted by the lower authorities. Even then the lower authorities have gone ahead and confirmed the demand.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-04-23

Following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as well as the order of this Bench, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has complied with the mandatory requirement of pre deposit, taking into consideration that the service tax has been paid by M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited under GTA services on Reverse Charge basis.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-22

This application of Revenue seeks early hearing of appeal no. E/86789/2016 against order-in-original no. 23 to 25/COMMR(RS)/LTU-M/CX/2015-16 dated 31.03.2016 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-22

It would appear from the record, and the submission of Learned Authorised Representative, that this plea is based only on the substantial revenue involved in the dispute.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-22

This is an appeal of an aggrieved assessee against whom liabilities have been confirmed. The maintainability of appeal, with concurrent stay of recovery of remaining demand and/or fines/penalties, are subject to pre-deposit prescribed in section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Prior to such prescription, the Tribunal was vested with discretion to stay further recovery till the outcome of the appeal was decided subject to such pre-deposit as was prescribed by the Tribunal. In the changed circumstances of statutory disbarment of recovery beyond that prescribed in section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, an application for early disposal is not only a circumventing of this statutory disbarment but also directly in breach of legislative disbarment. Hence, a plea by Revenue based only on revenue consideration for early hearing of appeal of assessee or individual does not merit consideration.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-12

wrong address mentioned instead of appellant’s addresses mentioned in the concerned appeal papers and (ii) mention of Financial Year 2015-16 instead of 2016-17. He also prayed that the corrections may please be carried out.