Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sahwney Coal Transport Pvt Ltd, M/s V.S. Coal Carriers Pvt Ltd, M/s Swastik Coal Carrier Pvt Ltd, M/s Arjuna Carriers Pvt Ltd, M/s Nirpendra Logistics Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jaipur-I

2015 (11) TMI 332 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waiver of pre deposit - whether pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned service tax liability in terms of Section 35F (as amended w.e.f. 06.08.2014 of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is required to be made while filing appeals against order-in-original dated 30.09.2014 when the Show Cause notice in respect thereof was issued before 06.08.2014 - Held that:- Allahabad High Court after inter alia considering the judgements of Kerala High Court in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as amended with effect from 06.08.2014) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 is upheld - Decided against assessee. - Diary Numbers- 52254, 52258, 52262, 52272 & 52293/2015 - Dated:- 15-9-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri A K Batra, CA For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Tandaon, DR ORDER Per R K Singh The only issue involved in the matter is whether pre-deposit of 7.5% of the impugned s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase of M/s A.M. Motors Vs. Union of India and Commissioner of Central Excise, Kozhikode [2015 (6) TMI-162-Kerala-High Court] , mandatory pre-deposit is not required because lis in question commenced prior to the introduction of the amended Section 35F ibid and therefore the appeal should be dealt with in terms of the provisions of Section 35F as existed prior to 06.08.2014, (ii) Vide the judgements of Kerala High Court in the case of Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors [2015 (3) TM .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Andhra Pradesh High Courts, it is obvious that two interpretations are possible in this case, (iii) The Supreme Court judgement in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1953 SCC 211] also supports its case. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, stated that the issue stands settled by a detailed judgement by Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others - 2015-TIOL-1490-HC-ALL-ST and added that the dec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Delhi vide its dated 08.06.2016, wherein it has been held that such appeals are required to be accompanied with mandatory pre-deposit as per the amended Section 35F ibid. In the said order, the judgements of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) cited by the appellant were duly taken note of while arriving at the decision contained therein. 5. As regards the contention that in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version