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 Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-04-24

After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned Advocate Shri Kamal Jeet Singh for appellant and learned A.R. Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner for revenue, we note that the entire case of revenue is based upon the comparison of figures, as pointed out in the balance sheet with the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns. The appellant has explained that such difference has occurred on account of the accounting system as per the Income Tax Law, which explanation, in principle, stands accepted by the lower authorities. Even then the lower authorities have gone ahead and confirmed the demand.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-04-23

Following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as well as the order of this Bench, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has complied with the mandatory requirement of pre deposit, taking into consideration that the service tax has been paid by M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited under GTA services on Reverse Charge basis.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-22

This application of Revenue seeks early hearing of appeal no. E/86789/2016 against order-in-original no. 23 to 25/COMMR(RS)/LTU-M/CX/2015-16 dated 31.03.2016 of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-22

It would appear from the record, and the submission of Learned Authorised Representative, that this plea is based only on the substantial revenue involved in the dispute.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-04-22

This is an appeal of an aggrieved assessee against whom liabilities have been confirmed. The maintainability of appeal, with concurrent stay of recovery of remaining demand and/or fines/penalties, are subject to pre-deposit prescribed in section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Prior to such prescription, the Tribunal was vested with discretion to stay further recovery till the outcome of the appeal was decided subject to such pre-deposit as was prescribed by the Tribunal. In the changed circumstances of statutory disbarment of recovery beyond that prescribed in section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, an application for early disposal is not only a circumventing of this statutory disbarment but also directly in breach of legislative disbarment. Hence, a plea by Revenue based only on revenue consideration for early hearing of appeal of assessee or individual does not merit consideration.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-12

wrong address mentioned instead of appellant’s addresses mentioned in the concerned appeal papers and (ii) mention of Financial Year 2015-16 instead of 2016-17. He also prayed that the corrections may please be carried out.


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-04-10

We find that since there is a conflict between the two Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India with a
request to constitute a Bench to decide on the issue. In this regard, the reference in the case of Mineral Area Deveplopment Authority & Others Vs. SAIL eported in(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450, is reproduced below.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-04-08

Shri T.K. Sikdar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that appellant have not raised the claim regarding the threshold limit before both the lower authorities and the same cannot be raised before this Tribunal. 


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-04-08

The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/applicants, submits that since there is a conflict between the two Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter is referred to the Chief Justice of India with a request to constitute a Bench to decide on the issue. In this regard, the reference in the case of Mineral Area Deveplopment Authority & Others Vs. SAIL reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450, is reproduced below


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-04-05

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.