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 New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-10-01

I hold that the show cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR, was to be issued within the period of 90 days of receiving the offence report, and that the provisions do not intent for it to be served also within the said 90 days. Otherwise also the provision of statute has to be taken as directory when there is no apparent and intentional delay on part of the Department rather the noticee has committed the illegal act in violation of the provisions of the Act.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-09-24

In the present case availability of original invoices with the Department and those being misplaced by the Department is definitely a debatable point of fact, which otherwise was not mentioned in the appeal. Any oral submission thereof at the time of arguments is not sufficient to bring the same within the ambit of rectification. The appropriate remedy in the given circumstances is opined as that of appeal. As a result, the application in hand is held devoid of merits, accordingly, is dismissed.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-09-24

These miscellaneous applications are filed by the appellants for change of name of the company in the cause title of the appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the change in company name is evidence by the Certificates of Incorporation dated 18.11.2015 and 18.7.2018 pursuant to change of name from “Strides Arcolab td.”to “Strides Pharms Science Limited” issued by the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai. In view of this, all the miscellaneous applications for change of cause title are allowed and Registry is directed to change the cause title from “Strides Arcolab Ltd.” to “Strides Pharma Science Limited”.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-09-24

The prayer of the Revenue for withdrawal of appeals is allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Miscellaneous Applications filed for change of cause title are also allowed. MAs (WD) are disposed accordingly.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-09-20

Ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that all these appeals are having the same issue of valuation and the to be decided is whether the cost of transportation from the factory to the buyers’ premises when goods are sold on FOR basis should be included in the assessable value or otherwise and the matter has been settled by Hon.’ble Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited. This judgment was followed by this Bench in some cases. He also submits that appeal No. E/30199/2019 is also filed by them on the same issue which may also be linked and heard at an early date.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-09-18

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the matter only on the aspect of unjust enrichment as all other issues were either not raised at the first stage of SCN or settled in favour of the appellant. As regard the unjust enrichment, I find that though the appellant claimed that they have submitted various records however there is no particular records which show that incidence of service tax initially borne by the appellant was not passed on any other person. The fact remains that the sub contractor has charged the service tax and the same was reimbursed by the appellant to the sub contractor. The provision of the service tax was clearly made as expenditure in the books of the appellant. Even though I agree that merely because the service tax amount was shown as expenses that alone cannot establish that the incidence was passed on. However once the service tax amount is booked as expenditure then the burden to prove that the same was not passed on become heavy on the assessee. In this case no any document clearly show that the incidence was not passed on. Moreover, the appellant is a main contractor and for the entire project they are raising the bills including the service charge to the extent of service provided by the sub contractor to their main client. Therefore, it is clear that the incidence of unjust enrichment has been passed on to the service recipient. The service provided by sub contractor including the service tax is the total value which is part and parcel of the value of the service which was charged by the appellant to their client. In this position though the service tax paid by the sub contactor though initially borne by the appellant and reimbursed the same to the sub contractor the treatment of the service charge as well as the service tax is same and the total value of service including service tax stand merged with the overall contract value of the appellant which was charged to their client. Therefore, in absence of any direct evidence it was not established that the incidence of service tax for which the refund was sought for has not been passed on to any other person. Accordingly, the refund is clearly hit by unjust enrichment.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-09-16

As a result the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28-1-1999 passed by the Central Excise is set aside and the appeal of Franco Italian Company (supra) is allowed subject to the conditions that Modvat credit taken of the duty paid on the inputs which were utilised in the manufacture of duty free goods, is reversed.”


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

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without giving any specific finding on each of the reimbursable expenses. He further submitted that the only question in this appeal is whether the expenses viz.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-09-04

After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case the appellant got the copy of the impugned order only on 29.03.2019 and thereafter filed the appeal on 03.04.2019 which is within period of limitation. Further, I find that the Department has not been able to establish the proof of delivery of the impugned order and therefore I am of the view that there is no delay in filing the present appeal which is in time and therefore I hold that the COD becomes redundant as the appeal is in time. List it on 09.10.2019 for final disposal.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-09-03

When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 18 April, 2019, the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 4 February, 2019 was taken note of, but time was granted to the Appellant to obtain appropriate modification of the order passed by the Delhi High Court.