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: 2019-04-03

The wisdom of legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding cannot be ignored. In exercise of its power the High Court is to balance the freedom of an individual on the one hand and security of the society on the other. Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction. The acknowledged experience is that where challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the matter remains pending for long time which defeats the interest of justice. does not appear to have made an impression in the minds of the officers.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-01

We have thus no hesitation in concluding that the High Court has jurisdiction in appropriate case to consider the challenge against an order framing charge and also to grant stay but how such power is to be exercised and when stay ought to be granted needs to be considered further.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-01

It appears to us that, omitting to peruse the observation in the concurring judgment to the effect that,‘17.... A judgment has to be read as a whole...’,the attention of the jurisdictional officers was inexorably drawn to the direction to‘35.... In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we considered appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of 6 months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended.’ for initiating steps to implement the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-03-29

At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though they have filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court, the same is yet to be admitted and as discussed above the mistake was apparent on record and therefore, the Tribunal can rectify the same. He made a statement in case the Tribunal rectifies the mistake apparent on record, they undertake to withdraw the appeal filed before the Hon’ble High Court.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-03-28

Since the allegations in the show cause notices in all these three cases more or less are the same, the allegations in the show cause notices issued to VEMPL are taken up as a starting point for this order. 


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-03-26

On going through the order, we find that the order is categorical in stating that the adjudicating authority will arrive at a conclusion on properly weighing the evidence available on record and it has also been stated that the Bench has not gone into the merits of the case.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-03-25

The learned Counsel states that there is an error of law committed by this Tribunal, both in calculating the period of limitation and also in ignoring the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court and Larger Bench of this Tribunal which had a binding effect on the Division Bench. Further, in the final order, there is no discussion, distinguishing the Larger Bench ruling in Margra Industries Ltd. 


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-03-15

Per-contra, ld. D.R. has submitted that order is speaking one and after discussing all facts and circumstances and relevant law that while setting aside the penalty, the demand was still confirmed. There is no error apparent on record. Otherwise also under the garb of application for rectification of  mistake, recalling /reviewing of order is not maintainable. Application is prayed to be dismissed.


Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2019-03-14

On the other hand, Ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that non consideration of the submissions made by the appellant cannot be the ground for rectification of mistake as erred by this Tribunal in the case of M/s S.H.S Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 2017 (350) E.L.T. 298 (Tri. – Chennai).


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-03-13

The above two errors are apparent on the records and accordingly they are rectified. Revenue is seeking another error for rectification is that the Commissioner should not have delegated the power of adjudication tolower authorities and this point was not considered by the Bench. On perusal of records we find that in the grounds of appeal, Revenue has not contested as to how the CENVAT Credit which has been allowed is incorrect and on a similar issue against the same Order-in-Original which went against the appellant assessee, this Bench has taken a view that CENVAT Credit is allowable by final order No. A/31219/2016, dated 22.11.2016 which is recorded in para No. 5. We do not find any error apparent on the face of this order as urged by learned Departmental Representative.