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: High Court of Delhi Date of Order: 2019-08-14

Shri Akhil Krishan Maggu, Learned Counsel also submits that against the common adjudication order, the appeal and other co-noticee/ parties are pending before this Tribunal, and thus there will be no prejudice caused to the respondent Revenue. He further stated that as the appellant has filed the appeal as M/s Jaskaran Enterprises within time, there is no deliberate delay or latches on their part in preferring the present appeal, in its individual capacity.


Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Order: 2019-08-13

On perusal of the record, I find that initially the matter was listed on 18.03.2019 and 04.07.2019. On all the occasions none appeared on behalf of the Appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received. In these circumstances, it is concluded that Appellant is not interested in pursuing the case, but in the interest of justice, one more chance is given to the Appellant to defend their case subject to Cost of Rs. 2000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 7 days from today and compliance to be reported on 17 September, 2019. On such compliance, the matter shall be taken up for hearing on the same date for final hearing.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-08-09

In the rejoinder, Sh. Sachin Chitnis submits that in the case of Kohinoor Biscuit Products, the issue was decided on the basis of definition of place of removal as given under Section 4, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable for availing the cenvat credit when the valuation of final product is under Section 4A. He submits that as per amendment made in Rule 2 of Cenvat credit rules, 2004 vide Notification No. 21/14-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014, the definition of place of removal for the purpose of cenvat credit has been defined by inserting clause (qa) of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After the definition of place of removal brought in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the same is applicable for the purpose of cenvat credit, therefore, the judgments of Kohinoor Biscuit Products is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the period involved in the present case is November 2015 to June 2017. 


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-08-08

Heard both the sides and perused records of the case. We find that there is no huge revenue implication and the matter is not of recurring nature as contended by the Department. Therefore, we find that no case is made out by revenue for grant of stay. Accordingly applications for grant of stay are rejected.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-08-08

Learned Advocate and Learned Authorised Representative from both the sides are present. Order dt. 3-7-2019 of the bench directing Registry to issue notices to other 7 appellants along with Appeal Memos has been complied. In respect of 5 respondents notices sent by post have been returned back with endorsement like ‘addressee left’ and ‘office closed’. Learned Counsel for Appellant Bose Enterprise in Appeal Nos. C/85095/2013 and C/89914/2013 submits that he has accepted briefs in respect of these two appeals and filed Letter Of Authority in the form of Vakalatnama. Other respondents are absent. Notices be sent through the concern Commissioner of Customs to Respondents of Appeal nos. C/85662/2013, C/89911/2013, C/89912/2013, C/89913/2013, C/89915/2013, C/89916/2013 &  /89917/2013. Hearing is adjourned to 21st October 2019. Registry is directed to send notices along with copies of appeal through the Appellant Department.


Court: High Court of Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-08-07  

As is seen from above, Appellate Authority, for the purpose of setting aside the penalty, has concluded that there was no mala-fide intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of service tax. Accordingly, he has extended the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said part of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) does not stand challenged by the revenue.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-08-07  

The difference of opinion confines to the period prior to 1.7.2012. On perusal of Trust Deed, it shows that these are trusts formed with primary and predominant object of imparting education. These trusts carry out their objects by running schools and junior colleges. These trusts are registered as Charitable Trusts and also enjoy status of charitable trust engaged in education services under section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the students passing out from schools colleges run by these trusts are issued certificates by Andhra Pradesh Board, which are courses recognized by law.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-06

Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they are manufacturing certain items falling under Chapter heading 7324 and 7325 and one of the items manufactured by them is ‘manhole cover’. The appellant were classifying the product under heading 7324 whereas the Revenue seeks to Excise Appeal No. 691 of 2011 classify the item under 7325.10. He pointed out that rate of duty is same on both however, the chapter heading 7324 is liable to be taxed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it has been notified under Notification No. 13/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2002.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-06

The revenue also filed an application for Rectification of Mistake in as much as the Tribunal has not given any finding on the appeal filed by Revenue bearing No. E/259/2010. The Revenue filed this appeal that though enhancement of the penalty corresponding to the demand duty confirmed for the normal period as per the impugned order, the Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the appellant had an intention to evade duty.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-06

Shri J. C. Patel Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that, as regard the fact of sending of inputs to the job workers and return thereof has been decided by the Commissioner in the appellants favour by giving a categorical finding that the arguments and material adduced by the applicant clearly demonstrate that inputs were sent to the job workers and manufactured goods were received back, with this finding of the Commissioner, no issue remains left. Therefore, the appeal should have been allowed. As regard the issue that the Commissioner had proceeded to hold against the applicant by making out totally new case which was not contained in the notice has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the applicant thereafter there is no reason for remand of the matter. Accordingly there is an apparent error in the order dated 21.02.2019 which needs to be rectified and as a result appeals may be allowed.