Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws





Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order



Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-11-04

Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. J.C. Patel submitted that plea of limitation, which was taken as primary ground of appeal in para VI and VII of the appeal memo and placed in the written submission at para 2.10 to 2.12, was ignored by the Tribunal and without giving any finding on such limitation ground, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was concurred-with by the Tribunal which is a mistake apparent from the face of record in view of several decisions including that of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court pronounced in the case of N.T.B. International P. Ltd reported in 2014 (302) ELT 481 (Bom) and Abhay Industries v. UOI-2011 (269) ELT 330 (Bom). He submitted for acceptance of the rectification application and inclusion of findings on the issue of invocation of larger period of limitation in the final order passed by this tribunal.

Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-11-01

Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they have deposited Rs.25 lakhs on 19.06.2018 and the interest amount of Rs.6,51,575/- on 29.06.2019, thereby they have complied with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court by depositing the amount within 12 weeks from the date of the order. He prays that the appeals may be estored.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-11-01

The Commissioner (Appeals) has in holding in OIA under review that “the department’s contention that the lower authority has not examined the aspect of unjust enrichment is not correct.”. In any view of the matter, it is apparent that Unit was paying duty under protest after issue of OIA dated 28.05.1997 which was in favour of the assessee, and therore payment of duty was to be treated as payment on their violation and cannot be treated as Under Protest”.

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Order: 2019-10-31

On going through the statement of facts, the grounds-of-appeal and even the additional grounds, we do not see any plea with regard to that and even the synopsis filed by the appellant is silent on this. Hence, the finding/conclusion is arrived at by the Bench on the basis of the grounds and arguments/synopsis; the allegation as to omission to consider the same is devoid of any merits and therefore, misconceived.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-10-29

In view of above change, Para 3 also needs to be corrected and the same may be replaced with the following:- “We have heard both the sides. We find that amongst other appeals, Appeal No. E/1020/2011-DB – M/s. Mutual Industries Limited vs. CCE, Vadodara was transferred to Mumbai Bench, for the reason that, the then Hon’ble Member (Judicial) Shri M.V. Ravindran had recused from this case. Now, as submitted by the Learned Counsel, the appeal, i.e. Appeal No. E/946/2011-DB can be heard by Ahmedabad Bench, subject to the decision of the Hon’ble President that whether the present appeal is transferred to Mumbai Bench or the connected Appeal No. i.e. E/1020/2011-DB is transferred back to Ahmedabad Bench. We direct the Registry to place file of this Appeal No. E/946/2011-DB before the Hon’ble President to decide whether both the appeals, E/1020/2011-DB – Mutual Industries Limited vs. CCE, Vadodara and E/946/2011-DB – Symphony Limited vs. CCE, Vadodara-II, filed against common impugned order, be heard together by the Mumbai Bench or Ahmedabad Bench.

Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-10-23

The investigation conducted with the Suptd. Of Taxes, Meghalaya revealed that Shri Rajesh Lapang had been issued certificate for transportation of dry betel nuts to West Bengal for the period 1/6/2015 to 31/12/2015, but was not issued any further certificate after the above period. As per the statement of the driver of the vehicles, the goods were loaded from a certain godown of M/s. Meghalaya Ispat ltd., but enquiries at the premises revealed that the godown was given on rent to one Shri Om Prakash Gupta who was not traceable.

Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-10-21

Both sides to be aware that no adjournment should be sought from either side since the Hon’ble High Court has directed to hear the appeal within a period of 4(four) months from the date of communication of the order of the Hon’ble High Court which is 16 September 2019 i.e. the date of filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Miscellaneous Application (COD) is accordingly disposed of in above manner.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-10-21

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submitted that the activity of job work had direct nexus with the manufacture of final product and as per the decision of Hon’ble CESTAT rendered in the case of CCE Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. [2017(47) STR 79 (Tri. Del.)], where the job worker had opted to pay service tax on the job work activity not withstanding exemption contained in the Notification No.8/2005-ST dt. 01/03/2005, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied at manufacturer’s end. He further submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had paid full amount to the job worker including the service tax and had availed the credit on the valid document. The learned counsel further argued that the issue of CENVAT credit on job work charges was not specifically urged during the hearing held on 28/01/2019 before the Tribunal due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel although the issue had been part of the proceedings from the very beginning. Therefore he has prayed that the order be modified and this CENVAT credit on job work charges should also be allowed. Learned counsel has cited the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Huller Screens Manufacturing Co. Vs. CCE, Kolkata-I [2015(315) ELT 544 (Cal.)] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that in view of Rule 41 which expressly empowers the Tribunal to pass any order or to give any direction to secure the ends of justice. 

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-10-18

Having considered the rival contentions, we deem fit and proper to condone the delay, in the interest of justice, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in Bihar Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. 

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-10-18

In the meantime, we grant stay of the operation of the impugned order till further orders. On the next date of hearing, we shall take up the final hearing, subject to service of notice.