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 Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He argued that all the buyers have admitted that they have received „coated‟ material. He argued that the sample has been tested and the same test report is applicable to all the goods. He further argued that the adjudicating authority allowed cross-examination of only one person, and on that basis allowed the appeal partly. He argued that in view of the admission of 13 different buyers, such cross examination should not have been relied.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-05-06

During investigation it was found that the primary packing of the supplies intended sale to institutional buyers contained marketing such as „railway supplies‟, „BHEL supplies‟ etc. It was also found that the MRP was not printed in respect of supplies meant for institutional buyers.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-06

Apart from the above, we also note that the appellant’s earlier ROM application stands rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.05.2018 refers (supra). The provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act refers to the mistake in the Final Order of the Tribunal and not to a mistake in the order passed on the rectification of mistake application. This is well settled law that no rectification of mistake application can be filed in respect of an order passed on ROM. This was so observed by the Tribunal in the case of Anchor Electricals vs. CCE, Dehradun vide Misc. Order No. 50608/2018 dated 31.08.2018. It stand held that there is no provision for filing second rectification of mistake application and the same amounts to abuse of process of the law especially in view of the fact that the earlier ROM has been dismissed.

Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-05-02

It appears from the records that these applications for condonation of delay were filed seeking condonation of a delay of about 35 days in each case in filing the appeal on the ground that Shri Anand Agarwal, the applicant herein, met with an accident and was advised complete bed rest from 05.11.2018 to 20.11.2018. A copy of the  medical certificate from Apollo Hospital has also been enclosed to the applications

Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-05-01

I have heard the learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the Revenue. The respondents were manufacturers of sugar and molasses. They were removing Bagasse and Press Mud. The period covered is from 1st March 2015 to 31st March 2016. In view of the amendment in explanation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.03.2015 there was an obligation on the part of the manufacturer to pay amount under sub-rule 3 of said Rule 6 at a fixed percentage of the value of non-excisable goods removed when Cenvat Credit on input and input services were availed and such inputs and input services were used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods including non-excisable goods. Therefore proceedings were initiated against the respondent for recovery of around Rs.44.00 Lakhs. On perusal of record I note that the issue is covered by precedent decision in respondent’s own case in respect of their another unit through Final Order No.70801/2019 dated 18.04.2019. It was held in the said Final Order that Press Mud and Bagasse are not arising out of manufacturing activity and the same are agricultural waste and residue and therefore since the said Final Order is applicable in the present case I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by Revenue.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-04-30

We therefore, set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to provide order of final assessment to the appellant and thereafter on their representation, a reasoned order should be passed. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority

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.