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



Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai v/s M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65990MH1945PLC004558

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

    Appeal No. E/469 of 2011 & Final Order No. 42408 of 2018

    Decided On, 12 September 2018

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

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. V. PADMANABHAN
    By, TECHNICAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR). For the Respondent: Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate.



Judgment Text


C.S. Sulekha Beevi, Judicial Member.

1. This appeal is filed by the department against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise who partly set aside the demand raised in the show cause notice.

2. The respondents are engaged in manufacture of motor vehicles. During scrutiny of ERI Returns, for the months of December 2008, April 2009, June 2009 and November 2009, it was noticed that the respondents had removed 16 numbers of motor vehicles (prototypes) (2200CC - 7 Seater) to their unit Nasik on returnable basis. Since there was no sale involved, the department requested the respondents to redetermine the value under Rule 11 r/w Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and arrive at 110% of the cost of production under CAS-4. To this, the respondents vide letter dated 20.4.2009 submitted CAS -4 statement and arrived the value of one motor vehicle as Rs. 71,14,198/- for the period December 2008 and April 2009. Similarly, they had submitted CAS-4 pertaining to 14 vehicles removed during June 2009 and November 2009. It was contended by them that Rule 8 was not applicable in their case and that they had adopted the future sale price of the motor vehicles in terms of Rule 4 and had discharged appropriate duty. It appeared to the department that the assessable value adopted by the respondents was not correct and show cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty, interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Commissioner vide impugned order held that the valuation is to be done under Rule 4 and that Rule 11 r/w Rule 8 is not applicable. The assessable value adopted by the assessee was increased by the adjudicating authority and differential duty was confirmed under Rule 4. The assessee had paid the said enhanced differential duty. Aggrieved by the dropping of the demand as raised in the show cause notice as well as penalties, the department has filed the present appeal.

3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy appeared and argued on behalf of the department. At the foremost, it was submitted by him that the respondents did not file any appeal or cross-objections and therefore the findings of the Commissioner that the goods (prototypes) are marketable and excisable requires no interference. The issue therefore is with regard to only valuation. The prototype motor vehicles were cleared by the respondents to their own unit at Nasik for testing their road worthiness as a prerequisite prior to manufacture and commercial marketing of similar model motor vehicles. They have adopted the value of existing similar motor vehicles sold subsequently under Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. He argued that Rule 4 uses the word "such goods" and the value of the prototypes cannot be the same as motor vehicles which are commercially marketed. As prototypes vehicles are distinct from the similar motor vehicle models sold subsequently, adoption of the value of such vehicles for valuation of prototypes cannot be in accordance with Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. The adjudicating authority has drawn support from the Order-in-Original No.18/2010 dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Pune. Since the order is passed by an authority equivalent to the adjudicating authority who has decided the impugned order, it cannot have a binding precedent value. Further, the adjudicating authority has wrongly relied upon the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association vs. Union of India -2008 (222) ELT 22 (Bom.). The said case is relating to the value of physician samples and the goods cannot be compared with that of the present goods. Another decision relied upon by the adjudicating authority is the case of M/s. VST Tillers and Tractors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2003 (159) ELT 699. In the said case, the issue before the Tribunal was whether the IC engines consumed captively by the assessee can be valued on the basis of sale price of identical goods sold subsequently. In the present case, prototypes are not identical goods with the similar model motor vehicles sold subsequently and therefore the decision would not apply. When the prototype vehicles are sold for the purpose of testing of road worthiness, the situation is akin to the prototype vehicles being used / consumed in the manufacture of motor vehicles and therefore Rule 8 would be applicable for valuation. Thus, when there is no subsequent sale of the excisable goods, the adjudicating authority ought to have considered the valuation of these goods under section 4(1)(b) r/w Rule 11 and Rule 8 ibid namely 110% of the cost of production and should not have resorted to Rule 4. He therefore prayed that the demand proposed in the show cause notice may be confirmed.

4. The ld. counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that the prototypes were cleared to their unit at Nasik on returnable basis for extensive testing at the testing track facility located therein so as to determine their quality and road worthiness. On successful and satisfactory testing, the respondent undertakes production of the motor vehicles in line with the prototypes. After the testing process, the prototype models are scrapped / destroyed or kept as display pieces. Thus goods were cleared by the respondent for testing on payment of excise duty. For this purpose, the price at which the vehicles are likely to be sold after commencing commercial production was adopted by the respondent in terms of Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. Thus the case of the department that the prototype when used for testing is akin to captive consumption is a wrong allegation. The prototypes are not captively consumed and therefore Rule 8 is not applicable. The prototypes are not consumed by the respondents for manufacture of further motor vehicles. Such prototypes are final product by themselves and cannot be said to be consumed in the manufacture of further motor vehicles. That the allegation that the respondent ought to have adopted Rule 8 and CAS-4 is entirely wrong. He adverted to the Order-in6 Original No.18/2010 dated 28.10.2010 in their own case passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune wherein on similar set of facts and issue, the adjudicating authority had dropped the proceedings. On the very same issue, another show cause notice was issued which culminated in passing of Order-in-Original dated 7.10.2013 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune against which the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). By Order-in-Appeal dated 21.2.2015, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the appellant setting aside the demand. These decisions have been accepted by the department and there are no appeals filed against such decisions passed by the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals). However, the ld. counsel fairly submitted that in another proceedings, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed the demand vide order dated 30.3.2012. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped part of the demand and waived the penalties.

5. Heard both sides.

6. As pointed out by ld. AR, since there is no appeal filed by the respondents, the issue with regard to excisability and marketability of the prototypes does not require any further analysis. The issue that has to be looked into is only with regard to the valuation of the prototypes. The department contends that the valuation under Section 4(1)(b) r/w Rule 11 and Rule 8 should be applied. It is pertinent to note that when the respondent was asked to submit CAS-4 statement, the assessable value has been arrived to be Rs. 71,14,198/- for one motor vehicle. At no stretch of imagination, the assessable value of similar model vehicle can be Rs. 71,14,198/-. It is to be noted that under Rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, a prototype of every motor vehicle shall be subject to testing by designated Government Departments or Research Associations or Testing Institutes to ascertain the compliance of provisions of the Act and Rules. The said Act itself uses the word 'prototypes'. Only after certification by such authorities can the manufacturer of motor vehicles manufacture and market the motor vehicles. The similar model vehicles which are commercially manufactured can be said to be copies of the prototypes. It cannot be then said that

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

these prototypes are consumed in further manufacture of motor vehicles. Thus Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 will not apply to such a situation. We find that the Commissioner has gone deeply into the analysis of what is prototype and the valuation to be adopted for such prototypes. He has also relied upon the Order-in-Original No. 18/2010 dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune in the appellant's own case, wherein the proceedings were dropped. We find that the department having accepted the decision passed by the Commissioner in the said Order-in-Original as well as the decision passed in Order-in-Appeal dated 21.2.2015, they cannot insist that Rule 11 r/w Rule 8 has to be applied in the present proceedings. 7. From the above discussions, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-08-2020 Mahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Signatory R. Eswaran Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2020 P.P. Suresh Kumar, Managing Director, Kerala Communications Cable Ltd., Kochi & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 Doosan Infracore India Private Limited, Rep., by N. Krishnakumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
17-03-2020 Bank of Baroda V/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Sanjeev Kumar Bansal Versus M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
21-02-2020 Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, S. Balaji V/S Prabhash Kumar, M/s. Prasambi Design & Construction Pvt Ltd., Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep.by its Authorized Representative M.D. Maheshwaran Versus The Special Secretary, Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Others 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
05-02-2020 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S Kuldeep Singh and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh
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
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
30-01-2020 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited Versus George Kutty Lukose & Another Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
24-01-2020 Anil Agarwal Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-01-2020 Valliyara Trading & Services (Pvt.) Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai & Another 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
06-01-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s.Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, Allagapuram, Salem Versus R. Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-12-2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Supreme Conchem Ltd. & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
06-12-2019 S. Ramesh Versus M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Another Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Versus P.V.N. Silks & Others Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
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
08-11-2019 Mahindra Shanker (Bishwakarma) Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
04-11-2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., Rep., by its Vice President – Human Resources, Chennai & Another Versus Appellate Authority under Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act-1947, Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 M. Suryanarayana Rao & Another Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-09-2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Versus Sanjiv Gupta & Others Supreme Court of India
19-09-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Egmore, Chennai, Represented by Chief Manager, Stephen Joseph, Kochi Versus Joseph Mohanan & Another High Court of Kerala
03-09-2019 Financial Intelligence Unit - Ind Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Superannuation Scheme Versus Pandurang Govind Shelar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
30-07-2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ing Vysya Bank Ltd.) & Another Versus Dr. Kishore Manganiramji Laturia & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-07-2019 Bharat Chawla Versus Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
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
01-07-2019 Anuraag Kaul Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
21-05-2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited, Chinnakanal Village, Idukki, Represented by Its Divisional Manager, S. Ramesh Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
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
10-05-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. & Others Versus N. Sreenivasan & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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
06-05-2019 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Versus Moreshwar Mahadeo Tighare National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-05-2019 Col. (Retd) S.P. Putchala Versus Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-05-2019 Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus S.P. Putchala & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-04-2019 Mahindra World City Developers Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-IV(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
15-04-2019 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Versus Mukesh Kumar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-04-2019 Tech Mahindra Ltd. Versus Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2019 M/s.Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. & Another Versus Dr.Louie Fischer, M.O.S.C.Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
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
03-04-2019 Tarlok Singh Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-04-2019 Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. Versus K.J. Francis & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
26-03-2019 Harpreet Kaur Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
20-03-2019 Nuruddin Latif Naik Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
11-03-2019 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.Tractor Division, Maharashtra Versus Nandlal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-03-2019 Rajesh Kondira Bhonsle & Another Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited High Court of Delhi
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
04-03-2019 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Branch Office at Egmore, Chennai, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Felix Basil Versus The District Collector/District Magistrate, Pondicherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
05-02-2019 Dr. J. Saravana Moorthy & Another Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2019 Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2019 P. Prabhakar Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Government of India High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2019 Rameshchandra Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Branch Office & Others High Court of Karnataka
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
14-01-2019 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Another Versus Mohit Gupta Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
14-01-2019 The Manager, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Cochin & Another Versus Omana Dileep, Nellikunnathu, Jyothi Bhavanam, Kurichimuttom, Edayaranmula, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
08-01-2019 M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. Versus Mahindra Vadineni & Others Supreme Court of India
08-01-2019 Sicagen India Ltd V/S Mahindra Vadineni and Others. Supreme Court of India
08-01-2019 General Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited & Others Versus Dhiraj & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
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
05-12-2018 Delhi Baroda Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-11-2018 Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
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
15-11-2018 Mahindra Sanyo Special Steel Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Pradeen Salian Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
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
14-11-2018 Reliance Cable Industries Versus Commissioner of GST (East) Delhi High Court of Delhi
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
24-10-2018 Gupta & Mahindra Tractors, Jaipur Versus ITO (Tds), Kota Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
10-10-2018 All India Society for Advance Education & Research Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
04-10-2018 City Union Bank Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
28-09-2018 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep by its Vice President, Chennai Versus A. Anand Prasad & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2018 Kotak Mahindra Bank Versus Shalini Sehgal Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
10-09-2018 Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus Dymos India Automotive Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2018 Kotak Mahindra Bank Versus Sunita Nayar Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
10-08-2018 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Others Versus Kailash Chand & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC