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 Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-06-07

Accordingly, the applicants are directed to deposit the entire adjudged dues confirmed in the original orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and to report compliance on 10.07.2019. The appeal shall be restored back to file subject to receipt of the compliance report by the next date of hearing. It is made clear that if this order has not been complied within the stipulated time frame, the applications for restoration of appeals shall automatically be dismissed.

Court: CESTAT Allahabad Date of Order: 2019-06-04

Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Deputy Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of Revenue has submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) through impugned order has set aside the said Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2018 through which 19,670 kg. of betel nuts were confiscated under section 111(b) and (d) Customs Act, 1962 and an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.12.00 Lakhs was provided. He has stated that if the order of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) dated 23.01.2019 is allow to operate it will cause loss of Government revenue. He has relied on the grounds mentioned in the grounds of appeal.

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-06-04

As per the facts of the present case, the period involved is 22.04.2003 to 09.06.2003. As per the impugned order the relevant finding is reproduced below: “They have contended that the impugned SCN is invalid, unlawful and unsustainable in law and they submitted several grounds and case laws in their support but the same is not acceptable because the investigation revealed that they had used unlawful way to show exports and to complete their export obligations by procuring lower quantity goods by showing procurement of raw material/ finished goods in their in-bond register which in fact found to be a paper transactions only to show payment by cheques but to get the amount back in cash and to show vehicle nos. in documents which never had been used for transportation. Thus, I hold that the SCN is a valid and lawful and as such the case laws referred in their reply do not find applicability in this case.”

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-06-03

The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either.” Nothing as regards the express knowledge of the appellant has been brought out by the Revenue. In these circumstances, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors Pvt. Limited (supra), the demand in so far as extended period of limitation is set-aside. Consequently, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also set-aside. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-31

In view of this matter, we direct the Registry to place the detail of dispatch of the final order and also to put on record if in case of any of the appellant, the order dispatched have returned undelivered. Learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue is also directed to place on record, when the final order was received by the Department.

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-05-31

On the other hand the learned AR fairly conceded that the appellant has raised the ground of limitation in the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal but there is no specific finding regarding the limitation in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the services provided by the appellant falls under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 and he has not obtained service tax registration under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ for the period from 01.07.2003 to August 2006 on the commission received from the Hotel Management for getting clients to the hotel and this fact was detected during the audit and the assessee agreed and confirmed the receipt of commission during the period from July 2003 to March 2006 vide their letters dated 14.12.2006 and 03.01.2007 and therefore the original authority held that the appellant has suppressed the facts of such receipt and not declaring the same in ST-3 returns with an intention to evade tax by contravening the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 

Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-05-30

She further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 37C(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944, proof of delivery is required and in the present case the Department has not been able to provide the proof of delivery of the impugned order on the appellant. She further submitted that a liberal view should be taken in condoning the delay which is not intentional and deliberate.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-23

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that a sub-contractor is not required to discharge Service Tax liability if the main contractor has discharged liability on the work assigned to the sub-contractor. All decisions, including those referred to in this order, taking a contrary view stand overruled.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-22

Having considered the rival contentions, I find that although the delay for some extent is explained but in the interest of justice, I condone the delay and allow the CoD applications subject to cost of Rs.2,500/- in each appeal (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only), which shall be paid in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. Subject to payment of cost final hearing fixed on 29.07.2019.

Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-05-21

Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that although the delay has been explained to some extent but there is also some latches on the part of the applicant. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.2,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.