|
SERVICE TAX 2019-TIOL-2828-HC-MUM-ST
CCGST & CE Vs Radiowani
ST - The questions as framed seem to indicate that the dispute relates to the appropriate classification of services between two entries under FA, 1994 - Therefore, an appeal against such order of Tribunal would not lie before this Court - However, revenue submits that this Court alone would have jurisdiction - This for the reason that the issue which has been raised by Revenue in the SCN was to bring to tax the assessee under the head "sound recording services" - There was no competing entry - It was never the case of Revenue that the services could be taxed under the head Advertising Agency Services - The respondents points out that the dispute of classification of the services between two competing entries is indicated in SCN dated 30th March, 2009 itself - It is submitted that the impugned order decides the issue of classification of two services between two entries - On reading the impugned order of Tribunal and the SCN, it is a case of classification of services between two entries - In fact, the questions as framed by Revenue, itself brings out the issue of classification - Therefore, in view of Section 35G of CEA, 1944, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal: HC
- Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-2827-HC-P&H-ST
Vijay Kumar Garg Vs UoI
ST - The assessee vide its application dated 18/19.02.2014 filed the declaration Form VCES-I of service tax liability under VCES - The said declaration was rejected vide O-I-O, being filed after due date - Hence, a SCN was issued to assessee qua demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Same was confirmed - Aggreieved with said O-I-O dated 31.05.2016, assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals-II) which, vide order dated 20.02.2017 stands dismissed, while affirming the O-I-O - The assessee, thereafter, filed an appeal against the aforesaid order raising ground that the O-I-O dated 18.09.2014, rejecting its VCES Application, had not attained finality, however, the said appeal was also dismissed by Tribunal, while affirming the O-I-O for demand in question alongwith interest and penalty - Hence, the appeal, inter alia, is for quashing the Final Appellate Order dated 29.06.2017 - Assessee prays for permission to withdraw the present appeal, so as to enable to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, floated by the Ministry of Finance on 01.09.2019 – such permission granted : HC
- Appeal dismissed as withdrawn: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
CENTRAL EXCISE
2019-TIOL-2830-HC-P&H-CX
Den International Vs UoI
CX - The petitioner, a proprietary concern was engaged in packing/re-packing of tractor/auto/tiller/trailor parts - By filing the writ petition, a challenge was laid, inter alia, to the SCN, whereby their activities sought to be covered under definition of manufacturer as per the amendment made in schedule of CETA, 1985 vide notfn dated 8.4.2011 thereby raising an additional demand of central excise duty - The challenge is also laid to the offending portion of notfn dated 8.4.2011 - The aforesaid writ petition was admitted vide order dated 5.9.2012 - The petitioner has moved this application seeking an unconditional withdrawal of writ petition in view of the petitioner having availed the benefit of Amnesty Scheme floated by Government of India w.e.f. 1.9.2019 - The department has no objection in case the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn - The main writ petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn - In case no benefit is extended under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner would be free to seek revival of the present writ petition: HC
- Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2019-TIOL-2829-HC-MP-CX
Ashok Kumar Seth Vs UoI
CX - The petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India impugning the SCN dated 3.2.2016 - A perusal of petition shows that no reply to the aforesaid notice has been filed by petitioner so far - The writ petition has remained pending before this Court since the year 2017 - After perusing the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of controversy, the petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to raise all objections as has been sought to be raised in the writ petition by submitting reply to the SCN within one month - In next two months of filing of reply to SCN, the same shall be considered and dealt with by the respondents after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law: HC
- Petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
CUSTOMS 2019-TIOL-2826-HC-DEL-CUS
Hudson Overseas Vs CC
Cus - The writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set-aside the seizure memorandum dated 31.08.2019 with reference to shipping bill - The seizure memo dated 31st August, 2019 has been formally issued for the goods mentioned in Shipping Bill dated 4th June, 2019 - Looking to the Seizure Memorandum dated 31.08.2019, there is an over valuation of goods and hence the goods have been seized and the seizure memo has been issued - Hence, no reason found to interfere with this seizure memo at this stage: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT |
|
ADAHEAD_15.jpg)
