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: 2019-01-25

The present order disposes of an application under Rule 41 read with Rule 31 A of CESTAT Rules, 1982 praying for rectification of mistake apparent on record by recalling the Final Order No.51815/2018 dated 17th May, 2018 as passed in the said appeal. The appeal was of Commissioner, Service Tax vs. L.R. Sharma. However, the impugned application has been moved by the assessee - respondent. It is submitted onbehalf of applicant-assessee that the name of the applicant-respondent has been directed to be recorded as M/s. L.R. Sharma & Co. by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 22.09.2017 passed in SERTA 5/2017 as was filed by theapplicant. But the impugned order has still mentioned the applicant-respondent as L.R. Sharma. 


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-01-23

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the Department has filed the appeal on the ground that no penalty was imposed on Shri Vikas Musaddi, Manager of M/s. Santosh Radio Products. He strongly objected that the department has not preferred any appeal against Shri Vikas Musaddi but have filed their appealagainst Santosh Radio Products which is factually wrong.


Court: CESTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2019-01-23

When the matter was called up today for hearing, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they have filed one more appeal on the same issue being Appeal No. E/77054/2013 and requested that the appeals may be listed on the same day.


Court: CESTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2019-01-23

The above stay application is filed by the department seeking to stay the operation of impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has granted refund to the respondent.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-01-23

It has been stated that the appellant is not much educated, comes from rural area and does not have much knowledge of tax compliance. Therefore, it took considerable time for the applicant to understand implications of the order and appoint a lawyer for filing the appeal, which have resulted in delay. Accordingly Ld. Counsel prays for condoning the delay.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-01-23

There is delay of about 20 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated that Committee of Commissioner approve for filing appeal which was received in the last week on November, 2018, and thereafter the appeal was filed on 4th December 2018. There is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant Revenue.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-01-22

Learned counsel for the appellant, furnishing a detailed date chart explaining the reasons, submitted that the Managing Director of the appellant company ST/Misc/86461/2 2 018,ST/COD/86462/2018 had kidney problem post renal transplant from October 2016 and thereafter put to dialysis. The said Managing Director ultimately expired on 13.3.2018. The other Director, the son of the Managing Director, was required to frequently take his father to various hospitals in the country thereby the business suffered and their bank accounts were frozen for recovery of the dues. He submits that even after the demise of the Managing Director, they found it very hard to arrange the predeposit amount of Rs.17 lakhs which could be arranged later and the appeal was filed. In support of these facts, he produced affidavit of the Director, Shri Syed Kadir, son of the Managing Director. He submits that even as on date, the bank accounts are frozen and there has been mounting liability of Rs.4,73,92,452/-; in support, he produced the letter of ICICI Bank dated 15.1.2019.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-01-22

The goods in question i.e. 200 bags containing 1000 MTs of “Polyester  Chips Semi Dull Raw White A Grade” was originally consigned to India from  China for importer M/S Filatex (India) Ltd. in the month of August, 2008 and  the unit price of the same as agreed between the parties was @ USD  1400/MT, however the said importer i.e. M/s. Filatex (India) Ltd. did not clear  the goods and also refused to honour the bank L.C. Thereafter the exporter of  the goods located in China contacted the Respondents i.e. M/s Sun Tex for  resale of their goods since it was incurring heavy detention and demurrage  charges and also because the goods were getting deteriorated and the  exporter from China was not getting any other buyer to buy the goods. The  said exporter entered into an agreement in the month of December, 2008 with  the Respondents and the Respondents agreed to buy the said goods @ USD  600/MT subject to the condition that payment of all detention and demurrage charges will be born by the Respondents. In this matter the detention and  demurrage charges  alone compute to USD 505/MT. After the finalisation of  the agreement, the Respondents filed bill of entry in the month of January,  2009 declaring assessable value of the goods in question as .  2,92,09,200. 


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-01-22

After hearing the learned AR and on perusal of the material on record, I find that the delay is not deliberate and intentional and explained satisfactorily to the Bench. Therefore, I condone the delay and allow the COD application. Registry is directed to list this case for final hearing on 19.02.2019.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-01-21

These two applications are filed for out of turn hearing of appeal No. C/25025/2013. Application No. C/EH/20890/2015 has been filed by Revenue and the application No. C/EH/30763/2018 has been filed by appellant assessee.