w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate


Company & Directors' Information:- ALKRAFT THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29129TN1982PTC009474

Company & Directors' Information:- GST PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104MH2002PTC136410

    Appeal Nos. E/40311 to 40313 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 372, 373 of 2017 (CTA-I) & Final Order Nos. 41949-41951 of 2018

    Decided On, 09 July 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

   



Judgment Text

1. The issue in all these appeals being same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order.

2. Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of radiators and parts and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and service tax paid for input services. On verification of records, it was noticed that during the periods September 2009 to February, 2010 and October 2014 to April 2015, May 2015 to February 2016, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit on outward transportation of goods for the goods cleared from their factory gate to their own units at Jamshedpur and Uttarakhand on stock transfer basis. Show cause notices were issued proposing to disallow the credit and for recovery of the CENVAT credit along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before this Tribunal.

3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Ashwin Kumar submitted that the appellant in the present cases are contesting the issue of disallowance of credit on GTA services for outward transportation of goods which were stock transferred to their own factory which is a manufacturing unit located at Jamshedpur and Uttarakhand. He referred to Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and submitted that the 'place of removal' is defined as a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods. In terms of Rule 2(qa) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 also the 'place of removal' means a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods. The place of removal is required to be determined with reference to 'point of sale'. In the case of stock transfer, the entire goods are transferred to the other manufacturing unit of the appellant and therefore at the factory gate no sale takes place. Thus, in the case when the goods are stock transferred to their own unit for further manufacture, the place of removal cannot be considered as the factory gate. Only if there is a sale, the said point can be considered as a place of removal. To support his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. - 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC). The Board Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX dated 8.6.2018 was also relied by the ld. counsel for the appellant. He further took assistance of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (52) STR 350 (Tri. Del.) and Cadbury India Ltd. - 2016 (42) STR 155.

4. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan supported the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ultratech Ltd. - 2018 (9) GSTL 337 (SC). He argued that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the credit availed on GTA services upto the buyers' premises after 1.4.2008 is not eligible.

5. Heard both sides.

6. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions of law are reproduced as under:-

"Place of removal" means-

(i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods;

(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty;]

[(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory;]

from where such goods are removed".

Input services after 1.4.2008

"Input service" means,-

(i) services provided or agreed to be provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India where service tax is paid by the manufacturer or the provider of output service being importer of goods as the person liable for paying service tax for the said taxable services and the said imported goods are his inputs or capital goods; or

(ii) any service used by a provider of output service for providing an output service; or

(iii) any service used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto the place of removal,

and includes services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal.

[but excludes],-

[(A) service portion in the execution of a works contract and construction services including service listed under clause (b) of section 66E of the Finance Act (hereinafter referred as specified services) in so far as they are used for -

(a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or

(b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods,

except for the provision of one or more of the specified services; or]

[(B) [services provided by way of renting of a motor vehicle], in so far as they relate to a motor vehicle which is not a capital goods"

7. With effect from 1.4.2008, in the definition of input services the words 'upto the place of removal' has been substituted instead of 'from the place of removal'. The ld. counsel has strenuously argued that since there is no sale of goods from the factory gate when the goods are stock transferred to their own unit for further manufacture, the factory gate cannot be considered as place of removal. According to him, Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, uses the word 'place of removal' as the place from where the goods are sold. In the appellant's case, the intermediate goods are removed on payment of excise duty on the basis of CAS-4 for further manufacture to their sister unit. It is thus argued that though goods are removed on payment of duty to their sister unit, it does not amount to sale as there cannot be any sale to oneself. Therefore, the GTA services used for transportation of goods to sister unit cannot be considered as beyond the place of removal but is rather used upto the place of removal since the sale of finished product to buyer happens at sister unit. The decision in the case of Cadbury India Ltd. (supra) was relied by the ld. counsel in this regard. On perusal of the facts of the said case, it is seen that the CENVAT credit on GTA was received for clearance of the job work and to their own unit on payment of duty. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:-

"6. I find that both lower authorities have confirmed demand of Cenvat credit on GTA only on the ground that clearances to the job worker and their own unit made on payment of duty, for this reason it was contended that factory of the appellant is place of removal and credit cannot be allowed beyond the place of removal. I find that though the goods were cleared on payment of duty but it is admittedly not clearance for sale of the goods. In terms of Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, definition of place of removal is as under:

'Place of removal' means:-

(i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of excisable goods;

(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty;

(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearances from their factory.

from where such goods are removed."

From the above definition, it is clear that where the goods is cleared from factory, but place of removal is determined only a place, where the goods is sold. In case goods is sold from factory, the factory gate is considered as place of removal but though the clearances is made from the factory but goods is not sold from factory, but sold at any other place after removal of goods from the factory, the said place from where the goods is sold shall be the 'place of removal'. In the instant case though the goods were cleared on payment of duty from the factory of the appellant but not sold from the factory. In case of job work goods the sale of the finished goods took place from the appellant factory and in case of removal of goods to their own other unit the sale took place from that other unit. Therefore, in the present case transportation (GTA) service is used up to the place of removal and hence qualified as input service. As per this clear position in law, I am of the view GTA in the present case being used up to the place of removal covered under the definition of input service and hence admissible for Cenvat credit. I therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law."

8. In Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal referring to Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra), has observed that credit of service tax paid on transportation of clinker to their sister unit is admissible as there is no case of sale and transfer of property in goods at the factory gate. The relevant portion is as follows:-

"6. After careful consideration of the facts, the submissions of both the sides and the case laws cited, it appears that the facts do not involve any sale of the goods in question. The goods viz. clinker is to be transported from party's premises to their sister unit premises and the respondent viz. Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. is not taking any consideration for the same as Jojobera unit being their sister unit. It is clear that the definition 'place of removal' is inextricably linked with the fact of 'sale'. When present facts do not involve any sale, one cannot say that the factory premises of the appellant is the 'place of removal'. Therefore, the Revenue's contention that Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on account of transportation services used for transportation of clinker transferred by respondent to their Jojobera unit is without sufficient force.

6.1 The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement (supra) has observed that if ownership of goods remain with seller Cenvat credit would be admissible. CESTAT, Mumbai in case of Metro Shoes P. Ltd. (supra) also holds that when there is no sale involved, services used till place of removal are eligible for credit. In the present case, 'place of removal' is to be treated as Jojobera unit of M/s. Lafarge India (P) Ltd."

9. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ultratech Ltd. (supra) had laid the law that after 1.4.2008 CENVAT credit on GTA service is not eligible from the factory to buyer's premises and eligible only upto the place of removal which is the factory gate. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"7 It may be relevant to point out here that the original definition of 'input service' contained in Rule 2(l) of the Rules, 2004 used the expression 'from the place of removal'. As per the said definition, service used by the manufacturer of clearance of final products 'from the place of removal' to the warehouse or customer's place etc., was exigible for Cenvat Credit. This stands finally decided in Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2016 (Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum v. M/s. Vasavadatta Cements Ltd.) vide judgment dated January 17, 2018. However, vide amendment carried out in the aforesa

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

id Rules in the year 2008, which became effective from March 1, 2008, the word 'from' is replaced by the word 'upto'. Thus, it is only 'upto the place of removal' that service is treated as input service. This amendment has changed the entire scenario. The benefit which was admissible even beyond the place of removal now gets terminated at the place of removal and doors to the Cenvat credit of input tax paid gets closed at that place. This credit cannot travel therefrom. It becomes clear from the bare reading of this amended Rule, which applies to the period in question that the Goods Transport Agency service used for the purpose of outward transportation of goods, i.e. from the factory to customer's premises, is not covered within the ambit of Rule 2(l)(i) of Rules, 2004. Whereas the word 'from' is the indicator of starting point, the expression 'upto' signifies the terminating point, putting an end to the transport journey." The decisions relied by the appellant were rendered prior to the judgment in the case of Ultratech Ltd. (supra) which was decided in Civil Appeal No. 11261 of 2016 decided on 1.2.2018. 10. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the credit is not eligible. The impugned orders do not call for any interference. The appeals are dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-07-2020 Subhash Joshi & Another Versus Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
26-06-2020 U. Manikandan, Mani Poultry Farm, Annamooli, Palakkad Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Special Circle, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, Chennai V/S The Glovis India Private Limited, F-98, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 M/s. Hwashin Automative India Pvt. Ltd., Sriperumbudur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, (Not known as the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Irungattukottai Division), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 M/s. Carenow Medical Prviate Limited, Rep. by its Director & the auth. Rep.T.Rajkumar Versus Rajesh Sodhi, The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 M/s. Phoenix Rubbers, Palakkad, Represented By Sakkeer Hussain, Managing Partner Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
21-01-2020 M/s. Samrajyaa and Company, Represented by its Partner N. Ranganayaki Versus Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 ASL Builders Private Limited V/S Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
06-01-2020 Asutosh & Another Versus Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
22-11-2019 BGR Energy Systems Limited, Represented by its Assistant Vice President Accounts, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2019 M/s. Alkraft Thermotechnologies (Pvt.) Ltd., Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, Rep. by Authorised Signatory, P. Sirajudeen Versus Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2019 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate Versus Intimate Fashions India (P) Ltd., Guduvancherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles, represented by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan, Poolankinar Post, Udumalpet Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Alkem Laboratories Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Daman High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-07-2019 M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., (Formerly ‘M/s. Hinduja Foundries Ltd.'), Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
20-06-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Now known as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichirapalli Versus M/s. Madras Cements Ltd., Ariyalur High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2019 M/s. Sowmiya Spinners (P) Ltd., Coimbatore Versus The Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore District High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-05-2019 M/s. Brandavan Food Products (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956), Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Commissioner (Appeals), Central & State Goods and Service Tax Raipur Commissionerate Central GST Building, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-05-2019 M/s. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
07-05-2019 M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-04-2019 M/s. Vendhar Movies, Represented by its Proprietor S. Madhan, Chennai & Others Versus The Joint Director, O/o. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-04-2019 M/s. Paripooranam Steel Traders, Chennai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-04-2019 M/S. Zentech Off-Shore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai South Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-03-2019 M/s. Popular Maruthi Painting Works, Chennai Versus The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2019 M/s. Sri Ram Company Versus Commissioner of GST & CE, Madurai Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
05-03-2019 Shivangi Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & GST, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-03-2019 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai & Another Versus M/s. Updater Services P. Ltd. & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-02-2019 Vimal Nayan & Others Versus The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Chennai North Commissionerate, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2019 Shri Tirupathi Kumar Khemka Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & GST, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2019 P. Prabhakar Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Government of India High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2019 World Class Management Service Versus Commissioner of GST & CE Chennai South Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
06-12-2018 Kun Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., Puducherry, Represented by Collin Elson, Sales Manager & Another Versus The Asst. State Tax Officer, Kerala State GST Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
22-11-2018 M/s. TMT. Granites (Pvt) Ltd. Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director, Tom George Versus The Commissioner, State GST Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
14-11-2018 Reliance Cable Industries Versus Commissioner of GST (East) Delhi High Court of Delhi
14-11-2018 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-11-2018 Principal Commr. of Central Tax, GST, Delhi Versus Pymen Cable (India) High Court of Delhi
09-11-2018 M/s. SRF Ltd., Manali Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
12-09-2018 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Versus M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
10-09-2018 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus Dymos India Automotive Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2018 Vijay Prestressed Products Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam - G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Allahabad
24-07-2018 Andhra Organics Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam - G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
24-07-2018 Maxworth Plywood Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam - G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
23-07-2018 Consim Info Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 M/s. Leo Oils & Lubricants Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 Alkraft Thermo Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 Terex India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Commissioner of G.S.T. & C.E., Salem Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
11-07-2018 Anuradha Sharma V/S Commissioner (Appeals), Customs GST and Central Excise, Lucknow Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
10-07-2018 M/s. K. Bit Brave Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-07-2018 Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-07-2018 Yona Smelters Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
03-07-2018 Sparsha Logistics V/S CCT, Hyderabad G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
02-07-2018 Wipro Enterprises Ltd V/S The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Tirupati-GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
02-07-2018 Kasturi & Sons Ltd V/S Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
28-06-2018 Sentini Ceramica Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Guntur GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
20-06-2018 M/s. Deccan Park Resorts Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
18-06-2018 The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Office of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy & Another Versus M/s. Cheran Cements Limited (DEFUNCT) Rep by its Authorized Signatory ? G. Duraisamy, Karur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-06-2018 Chennai Ferrous Industries Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & CCE (Chennai Outer Commissionerate) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-06-2018 HCL Infosystems Ltd. Unit - III V/S Commissioner of GST & CCE, Pondicherry Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-06-2018 Hetero Labs. Limited V/S CCT, Hyderabad GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
21-05-2018 Mane India Private Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Medchal - GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
17-05-2018 Voith Turbo Private Limited V/S CCT, Secunderabad GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
15-05-2018 M/s. Kairali Granites, Represented by Its Proprietor, V.R Narayanan Embran Versus The Asst. State Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
15-05-2018 Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. V/S GST, CCE, Coimbatore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
15-05-2018 Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. V/S GST & CCE, Chennai Outer Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
14-05-2018 Aditya Polysacks Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Centre Excise & GST, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-05-2018 Pioneer Hi Bred Private Limited V/S CCT, CE & ST, Medchal GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
09-05-2018 M/s. Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-05-2018 Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
08-05-2018 R.N. Metal (India) Pvt. Limited and Others V/S CCE & GST, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
20-04-2018 Holtec Asia P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, GST Pune-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
12-03-2018 Venkateswara Rao Bolla & Another Versus The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
06-03-2018 Wheels Tourists Operator V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
20-02-2018 Commr. of GST, Mumbai Central V/S Everstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
08-02-2018 Shreyas Stocks (P.) Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
01-02-2018 M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Puducherry Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
23-01-2018 V. Sridhar Versus The Authorized Officer Indian Bank, Guindy Branch GST Road, Guindy Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-01-2018 Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
16-01-2018 Tidel Park Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
01-11-2017 National Aviation Co. of India Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
04-04-2014 Hindustan Unilever Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act Versus The Controller of Patents & Designs Intellectual Property Building G.S.T. Road, Guindy & Others Intellectual Property Appellate Board
16-12-2009 Tvl.Growell Pharmaceuticals 109, GST Road Chengalpattu Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Joint Commissioner (SMR) Office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2006 G.S.T. Motors Versus R. Elanchezhian Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
10-10-2003 Ex.Gst.Sudarshan Kunwar Versus Capol Farm Equipment Limited Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission New Delhi
16-03-2001 Pepsico India Holding Ltd., a Company under the Companies Act, having its Plaint at No.6, GST Road, Mamandur Village,Madurantakam Taluk, 603 111, rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Vikas Sexana Versus The District Revenue Officer, Additional District Magistrate Kancheepuram and 4 others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-1966 G.S.T. Shaik Mohideen Sahib Versus The State Wakf Board, Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras