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: 2019-12-11

Notice of this application was given to the importer who has also filed his submission and has stated that the Department has complied with the Final Order and also issued Detention Certificate for waiver of detention/demurrage charges. He has also submitted in the written submission that the importer has no objection in allowing the petition of the adjudicating authority to set aside the fine of Rs.25,000/- imposed on him.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-12-11

There is another angle from which the matter can be approached. It is only the party to the appeal who finds that the order contains a mistake apparent from the record and is aggrieved by such mistake, would be in a position to move an application seeking rectification of the order. Therefore also, unless and until a party to the appeal is in a position to go through and study the order it would not be possible, nor can it be envisaged, that a party can claim to be aggrieved by the mistake apparent from the record. Hence, even on this count the period of limitation has to be read and understood so as to mean from the date of the receipt of the order.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-12-09

The ld. AR Shri Arul C. Durairaj appeared for the department. He objected to the appeal itself on the ground that it is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Adverting to section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, he argued that the present order is only an interim order and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant cannot be entertained.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-12-09

After hearing both sides, I find that the delay of 88 days in filing each appeal is not deliberate and intentional and the reasons for the delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Bench. Consequently, I allow all the three applications and condone the delay.


Date of Order: 2019-12-05

Taking note of the fact that the consignments are in the custody of the department and the bill of entry is a live one, the request for early hearing petition is allowed. It is also pertinent to mention here that presently Single Member Bench is taking up 2018-19 matters. EH application is allowed. List the case for hearing to 18th December, 2019.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-12-03

The instant application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) hasbeen filed on behalf of the assessee against the final order No. A/85291/2019 dated 13.2.2019 passed by the Tribunal. According to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the submissions made by the learned counsel have not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the final order dated 13.2.2019. Per contra the learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the order of this Tribunal and submits that all the relevant submissions raised by the learned counsel have been adequately addressed by this Tribunal. Hence no error can be found in the order of this Tribunal, consequently no question of rectification, hence the application may be dismissed.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-12-03

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Earlier matter on classification decided by Commissioner (Appeals) not considered properly; the finding of the Tribunal in paragraph 10 that no appeal was filed on classification matters due to monetary limits is clearly erroneous as the said circular does allow appeals to be filed on classification issues even if the amounts are low as the matters would be repetitive. It is clear that the respondents are hiding their acceptance at one point of time under this submission and therefore, should not have been countenanced. The submissions made by the appellant on this count and recorded in paragraph and reliance on case laws have not been rebutted at all.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-12-02

The analogy of the above judgment is that free supply of cost of carton which have no role to play any product nor render the same marketable, its value cannot be included in the value of the final product of the appellant.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-12-02

From the above it is quite evident that all the facts and arguments in respect of which applicant has made grievance about on consideration have been duly taken into account while passing the order. Since all these arguments and facts have been duly considered we are not in position to agree with the submissions made by the applicant for recall of our order on this account.


Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2019-11-25

An application bearing Excise Miscellaneous Application No. 60965 of 2019 has been filed for hearing the appeal at an early date. The Application filed for early hearing of the appeal is allowed. The appeal shall be listed for hearing in Last Week of February, 2020.