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



Doosan Infracore India Private Limited, Rep., by N. Krishnakumar v/s The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai


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

    W.P. Nos. 5941 & 6018 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 7315 & 7316 of 2018

    Decided On, 05 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

    For the Petitioner: Joseph Prabakar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Rajnish Pathyil, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer in W.P.No.5941 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in the proceedings of the respondent in Order in Original No.115/2017 (R) dated 08.11.2017 in C.No.IV/16/130/2017/R&R/LC1, issued by the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.

W.P.No.6018 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in the proceedings of the respondent in Order in Original No.177/2017(R) dated 19.12.2017 in C.No.IV/16/227/R&R/LC1, issued by the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.)

Common Order

1. The Writ Petitions are heard through Video Conferencing on 22.07.2020. With the consent of Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajnish Pathyil, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the cases are taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner in both these Writ Petitions, is an Export Oriented Unit, registered with the respondent for providing “Information Technology Software Service” for the period from January 2016 to March 2016 and October 2015 to December 2015. They filed refund claim for Rs.6,93,657/- and Rs.6,31,884/- on 28.03.2017 and 27.12.2016 respectively, being the Input Service Tax Credit taken, under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 r/w Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. The respondent herein through separate impugned orders dated 18.11.2017 and 19.12.2017 objected the claim contending that the refund claim is to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date and the relevant date would be the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange with regard to the export made during the relevant period, for which the refund application is made. Aggrieved against both the rejection orders, the present Writ Petitions are filed.

3. Section 11 (B) of the Central Excise Act 1944 r/w Clause 3(b) of Notification No.27/12-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 enable a person for refund of any duty of excise and interest, by making an application with the authority before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. Through a Notification No.14/2016-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2016, Clause 3(b) of Notification No.27/12-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 came to be substituted, whereby the term ‘relevant date’, in the case of service provider was clarified to be after one year from the date of -

(a) Receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange where provision of service have been completed.

(b) Issue of notice where payment for the service had been received prior to the date of issue of the invoice.

Thus, as per the substitution made to clause 3(b), the relevant date would be one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange. Since the respondent has found that the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange with regard to the exports made during the period was after the one year period referred above, both the applications were held to be time barred and thus rejected.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the new condition of reckoning the relevant date in Para B of the Notification No.27/12 dated 18.06.2012 came into effect through Notification No.14/2016 dated 01.03.2016, the amendment would only apply to the refund claims for the subsequent quarters and not for the earlier quarters. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench reported in 2018 (359) ELT 678 (Mad.) in the case of TARAJYOT POLYMERS LTD Vs. Union of India and SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai reported in 2019 VIL (207) MAD.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the clarification Notification No.14/2016 dated 01.03.2016 is only a substitution of the earlier Notification No.27 of 2012 dated 18.06.2012 and therefore applied retrospectively. Hence, he would submit that the application for refund claim is time barred, since the date of FIRCs is after one year from the date of receipt of the respective payments in convertible foreign exchange. In support of such a contention, he relied upon the following decisions namely, 1) The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax and Ors. V. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.; Mehler Engineered Products India Pvt. Ltd. v The Union of India and Ors. [2018 (364) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.)] and The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate Vs. S.P.Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

6. The short point involved in the present Writ Petitions is as to whether the reckoning of the relevant period brought about through the notification No.14/16 dated 01.03.2016 by substitution would be prospective or retrospective in nature.

7. For the sake of convenience, the mode of reckoning the relevant date under the Notification No.27/12 dated 18.06.2012 and the subsequent amendment under Notification No.14/16 dated 01.03.2016 are reproduced below:-

“Notification: 27/2012-C.E. (N.T) dated 18-Jun-2012

3. Procedure for filing the refund claim:

(b) The application in the Form A along with the documents specified therein and enclosures relating to the quarter for which refund is being claimed shall be filed by the claimant, before the expiry of the period specified in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944).

Notification : 14/2016-C.E.(N.T) dated 01-Mar-2016

In the said notification, in Paragraph 3, for clause (b), the following shall be substituted, namely;-

(ii) in case of service provider, before the expiry of one year from the date of-

(a) receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, where provision of service had been completed prior to receipt of such payment ; or

(b) issue of invoice, where payment for the service had been received in advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice.”

8. As stated earlier, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act requires the applicant to make an application before the expiry of one year from the relevant date for the purpose of claiming refund of Excise Duty and interest. Under Rule 5 of the CENVAT, the “relevant period” means the period for which the claim is filed. Originally, Notification No.27/12 dated 18.06.2012 prescribed the procedure for filing the refund claims, by which, the claimant was required to file the application before the expiry of period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Clause 3(b) of the Notification No.27/12 dated 18.06.2012 came to be “substituted”, whereby the relevant date would be one year from the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, where provision of service has been completed prior to payment. The Notification No.14/2016 is a substitution to the original paragraph 3(b) of Notification No.27/2012.

9. The term “Substitution” literally means as a thing acting or used in place of another.

10. In other words, to substitute certain words or phrases or sentences in the original notification, would mean that the subsequent substitution would replace those words, phrases or sentences. In effect, what originally stood in the notification is replaced with the subsequent notification brought through substitution. While that being so, it cannot be construed as a new amendment for giving effect to certain procedures prospectively, but rather requires to be interpreted as having replaced the original procedure and thereby, the replacement would come into effect for the same time as the original procedure was provided for.

11. If this interpretation is applied to the facts of the case involved, the reasoning of the respondent adduced in the impugned order that the relevant date would be the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange and thereby, the findings that the application was time barred, cannot be found fault with.

12. By relying upon TARAJYOT POLYMERS LTD’s case (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the amendment is applied retrospectively, the vested right of the petitioner would be destroyed and therefore, such an amendment would be construed to be prospective. For the same proposition, the learned counsel also relied upon SODEXO FOOD SOLUTIONS’ case (supra). The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions may not be applicable to the issue involved in the present cases. The reason being, the present amendment in Notification No.14/2016 dated 01.03.2016 is only a substitution of the earlier Notification No.27/12 dated 18.06.2012 and the above decision relied upon by the petitioner does not deal with the case of substitution of a provision. When the original provision itself has been substituted, the procedure contemplated in the original notification becomes redundant and the subsequent substitution would have been replaced therein.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision in the case of Mehler Engineers’ case (supra), which rightly clarified the effect of substitution in the following manner :-

“10. The legal principles deducible from the above decisions is that if subsequent Act amends as earlier one in such a way as it incorporate itself or a part of itself into the earlier, the act must be construed as ‘retrospective’. This is so, because the word “substituted” would mean ‘to put one in the place of another’ or ‘to replace’. Thus, on account of such substitution whatever consequences which have to follow would naturally be applicable to the assessee by such substitution. Thus notification dated 22.02.2016 in Notification No, 51 of 2016-Cus (ADD) having substituted Entry 5402 47 in the notification dated 21.10.2015 bearing Notification No.51 of 2015:MANU/CUSA/0054/2015, it would mean that the Entry in the Notification dated 21.10.2015 shall be 5402 47 for all purpose and it shall be so with effect from 21.10.2015.

11. The learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently contended that the product classification is indicative only and is in no way binding on the anti-dumping duty investigation. In the instant case, the question of considering this submission does not arise, in the light of the Notification No.5 of 2016 : MANU/CUSA/0009/2016, dated 22.02.2016, which clearly states that it is a notification issued in substitution dated 22.02.2016, which clearly states that it is a notification issued in substitution of the earlier notification. Therefore, the proper of reading Notification No.51 of 2015: MANU/CUSA/0054/2015, dated 21.10.2015 is to read the Entry as 5402 47.

12. Thus, for the above reasons it is held that the Notification No.5 of 2016:MANU/CUSA/0009/2016, dated 22.02.2016 being substitutive in nature is held to be retrospective.”

14. In the same lines, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Fosroc’s case (supra) has held as follows:

“9. What is the effect of “substitution” of a provision in the place of an existing one is no more res-integra. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SHAMARAO V. PARULEKAR vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA, BOMBAY & Others reported in AIR 1952 SC page 324, dealing with the scope of substitution of a provision by way of amendment held as under:-

“When a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself or a part of itself into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all.”

10. Yet another Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDER & Others vs. RAM KUMAR & Another reported in AIR 2001 SC page 2472, while dealing with the question whether a substituted provision necessarily means the amended provision is retrospective in nature has held as under:

“A substituted section in an Act is the product of an amending Act and all the effects and consequences that follow in the case of an amending Act the same would also follow in the case of a substituted section in an Act.”

11. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHA CHUNNILAL SOHANRAJ VS. T.GURUSHANTAPPA reported in 1972(1) MYS.L.J. PAGE 327 DB has held as under:

“When an amending Act has stated that the old sub-section has been substituted by the new sub-section the inference is that the Legislature intended that the substituted provision should be deemed to have been part of the Act from the very inception.”

12. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATION reported in 2005(187) ELT PAGE 162 (SC), while dealing with the exemption notification which was issued by way of substitution, held as under:-

“15. The word ‘substitute’ ordinarily would mean ‘to put (one) in place of another’, or ‘to replace’. In Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, at page 1281, the word ‘substitute’ has been defined to mean ‘To put in the place of another person or thing’, or ‘to exchange’. In Collins English Dictionary, the word ‘substitute’ has been defined to mean ‘to serve or cause to serve in place of another person or thing’; ‘to replace (an atom or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group)”; or ‘a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague’.

16. By reason of the aforementioned amendment no substantive right has been taken away nor any penal consequence has been imposed. Only an obvious mistake was sought to be removed thereby.

17. There cannot furthermore be any doubt whatsoever that when a person is held to be eligible to obtain the benefits of an exemption notification, the same should be liberally construed.”

15. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had also an occasion to interpret the term “Substitution” in the S.P. Fabricators’ case (supra) in the following manner:-

17. On a reading of the above amendment, it is evident that clause (i) of sub-rule 6 of Rule 6 was substituted, thereby, the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty or either cleared to a unit in a special economic zone or to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorised operations. Thus, the question would be as to what would be the meaning of the word ‘substitute’;.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of India vs. Indian Tobacco Association [2005(187) E.L.T.162(S.C.) explained the meaning of the word ‘substitute’ on the following lines:

“15. The word ‘substitute’ ordinarily would mean ‘to put (one) in place of another’, or ‘to replace’. In Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, at page 1281, the word ‘substitute’ has been defined to mean ‘To put in the place of another person or thing’, or ‘to exchange’. In Collins English Dictionary, the word ‘substitute’has been defined to mean ‘to serve or cause to serve in place of another person or thing’, ‘to replace (an atom or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group)”; or “a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague.”

19. Thus, the ‘substitution’ by way of an amendment dated 31.12.2008 has to be read to put in place instead of the Rule, which was in existence prior to the said Notification. In other words, it has to be read as a replacement of an existing Rules.

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others [(2004) 8 SCC pg.1 brought about the distinguishing features between ‘substitution’ and ‘supersession’ and explained the same as under:-

24. The substitution of one text for the other pre-existing text is one of the known and well-recognised practices employed in legislative drafting. “Substitution” has to be distinguished from “supersession”or a mere repeal of an ex

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

isting provision. 25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision (see Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid.,p.565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P.Sugar Mills Assn.v. State of U.P. [(2002)2 SCC 645], State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal [(1996) 5 SCC 60], Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K.Rangappa Baliga and Co.[(1969)1 SCC 255] and A.L.V.R.S.T.Veerappa Chettiar v. S.Michael [AIR 1963 SC 933]. In West U.P.Sugar Mills Assn. Case a three Judge Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centring around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case, this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphasised the distinction between ‘supersession’ of a rule and ‘substitution’ of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule his brought into existence in its place.” 16. On an overall appreciation of the decisions referred above and the discussions made by this Court, I do not find any merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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
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
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 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
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
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 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 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 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
09-07-2018 Alkraft Thermotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-07-2018 Sparsha Logistics V/S CCT, Hyderabad G.S.T. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
03-07-2018 Yona Smelters Pvt. Ltd V/S CCT, Visakhapatnam 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 Hetero Labs. Limited V/S CCT, Hyderabad GST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
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
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 Kohinoor Printers Pvt. Ltd. V/S GST & CCE, Chennai Outer Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
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 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
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 Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
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
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