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 Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-02-13

The issue involved in the present case is that whether the residual Crude Bottom Oil remaining in the process of heating of Commingled Crude Oil in a distillation column to manufacture excisable petroleum oils is classifiable under chapter heading 27.09 as petroleum Oils, crude or under chapter sub-heading 27101990 as “other” petroleum oils i.e. other than crude.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-02-13

In view of the matter, we deem fit and proper to wait for the outcome of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court, put up this matter(s) on 21st June 2019. Parties are granted liberty to mention for early listing in case matter is disposed of by the Supreme Court earlier.


Court: CESTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2019-02-12

Instead of filing an affidavit to substantiate the assurance of proper compliance, the respondent-Commissioner has furnished a verbose explanation which presumes to superimpose upon the order of 3 C/86244/2014 the Tribunal an interpretation that was not warranted. The belated compliance is also at variance with the submission therein. We do not, for the moment, propose to dwell further on this.


  Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-02-08

Sh. S.K. Shukla, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly concede that there is an error as pointed out by Ld. Counsel which needs to be rectified.


  Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-02-08

Sh. R. R. Dave, Ld. Consultant, appearing on behalf of the Respondent fairly concede that the amount involved is above the threshold limit of the litigation policy.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-02-07

for final disposal. Accordingly, the application for early hearing is allowed and Registry is directed to list this appeal for disposal on 19.03.2019.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-02-06

With regard to the credit taken in respect of SEZ unit, it is his submission that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the respondent’s own case reported in 2016 (46) STR 751 (Tri.-Del.) Therefore, they are entitled to avail credit. He, therefore prayed that the impugned order is to be upheld.


Court: CESTAT Chandigarh Date of Order: 2019-02-06

The Ld.AR submits that principal for determination of jurisdiction of High Court and Tribunal is different. It is his submission that jurisdiction of CESTAT bench have been decided as per decision of Union Cabinet dtd.21.3.2013 vide Notification No.2/2015 of CESTAT and as per the said notification, the jurisdiction of the Regional Benches has been defined as under:- “Appeals arising from territories within the territorial jurisdiction of Regional Benches.


Court: CESTAT Hyderabad Date of Order: 2019-02-06

Learned departmental representative, on the other hand would submit that the order of the Tribunal is correct and there is no dispute as to the fact that non-fibrous material of 2.71% which is equivalent to 6.72 MT was found in the consignment of 247.247 MT. It is his submission that even this quantity is huge and cannot be disposed of as per the norms of APPCB.


Court: CESTAT New Delhi Date of Order: 2019-02-05

In view of the above, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in the impugned order in holding that this explanation is clarificatory in nature and has retrospective applicability and therefore the explanation inserted vide Notification No. 3/2011 dated 1.3.2011 has retrospective effect. I have been informed that against the decision of this Tribunal in L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been relied upon by the Appellant for non application of Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, the department has already filed Appeal before the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Central Excise Appeal No. 250 of 2017 .