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



HCL Technologies Ltd V/S CC & CE & ST, Noida


Company & Directors' Information:- HCL CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993DL1980PLC180124

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74140DL1991PLC046369

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74900DL1997PTC089338

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U99999DL1994PLC061129

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC183849

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- NOIDA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2003PTC123554

Company & Directors' Information:- CE-N (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2012PTC145470

Company & Directors' Information:- HCL TECHNOLOGIES (NOIDA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2008PLC182382

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

    E/2299/2009 (DB) (Arising out of O/A No. 48/Comm/Noida/2008 dated 05.12.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida) and Final Order No. 70212/2018

    Decided On, 19 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK JINDAL
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: B.L. Narasimhan and Atul Gupta, Advocates And For Respondents: Mohd. Altaf, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.)



Judgment Text


1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. The facts of the case are as under:-

The appellant is a service provider engaged in providing various taxable services i.e. information technology software service, business consultancy service, technical testing and analysis service etc. Appellant has taken centralized service tax registration at NOIDA in respect of all its taxable service activities provided from various locations throughout India.
2. In the financial year 2006-07, appellant opened an Electro Magnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Durability Test Lab (testing lab) at Chennai from where the appellant started providing product testing & certification service and concept manufacturing services to various customers. This lap offers product compliance testing for various physical parameters such as environmental testing which include thermal shock, rain, dust, temperature cycling, humidity and full European compliance testing and certification. The lap was set up to test durability and robustness of products with electronic hardware such as medical devices, network cables and mobile phones. The services provided from this location are taxable under technical testing and analysis service or technical inspection and certification services and accordingly, appellant has been discharging service tax on the services.

3. During 2006-07, in this testing facility, the appellant procured the following equipments on payment appropriate excise duty.:

FACT-10 Meter RF Shielded EME chamber

Heater with blower & panel with accessories

Clean air management system and prefabricated clean room enclosure.

Infiniti Pro P-IV 3.2 Ghz personal computer

The appellant took CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the above items since the same were used for providing taxable output service.

4. Vide show cause notice dated 31.03.2008, the CENVAT credit taken on the above items was sought to be denied because the classification of the items in question do not figure under any of the headings figuring in the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The proceedings culminated in the impugned order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA vide which the denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 80,20,528/- was confirmed and penalty of equivalent amount was imposed under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Against the said order appellant is before us.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that although the appellant has shown the goods on which they have taken the Cenvat credit as capital goods if they do not qualify as capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the said goods be treated as inputs in terms of Rule 2(k)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore they are entitled to avail Cenvat credit. It was also alleged that value of these inputs have not been formed the part of assessable value. The appellant is not entitled to get Cenvat Credit. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel that Cenvat Credit Rules nowhere provides that value of inputs or capital goods is to be formed the part of assessable value. It is further submitted that it was also held that the items in question do not have a consuming nature hence they are not admissible for Cenvat Credit as input. It is his contention that this reasoning of the Commissioner is perverse. In fact, item is required to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final goods or used for providing output service. He also submits that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai : 2015 (37) STR 577 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and after examining the issue this Tribunal allowed the Cenvat Credit.

6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the extended period of limitation is not invocable as all the necessary details were reflected in their Cenvat Credit account and dispute arose because of an audit objection. There was no mala fide intention of the appellant on the issue and this is purely case of benefit of interpretation of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In these terms he prayed that impugned order is to be set aside.

7. On the other hand the Ld. AR submits that all the goods in question merit classification under chapter heading 73089080 and the said classification do not cover as capital goods. Further the appellant has taken Cenvat Credit on the said goods as capital goods which do not qualify as capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 therefore Cenvat Credit is rightly denied to the appellant.

8. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

9. The short issue involved in the matter is that whether on the items in question appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on not. We find that the appellant has taken Cenvat credit as capital goods on the goods in question. Although they do not qualify as capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, but in alternate it is the claim of the appellant that these goods be treated as inputs in terms of rule 2(k)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. For better appreciation Rule 2(k) is reproduced below:-

RULE2...

(k) input means

(i) all goods, except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petrol, used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not and includes lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils, coolants, accessories of the final products cleared along with the final product, goods used as paint, or as packing material, or as fuel, or for generation of electricity or steam used in or in relation to manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production;

(ii) all goods, except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil, motor spirit, commonly known as petrol and motor vehicles, used for providing any output service;

10. As per the said rule any goods used for providing output service is entitled for Cenvat credit. Admittedly the goods in question has been used for providing the output service by the appellant. This fact is not in dispute. The question raised by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order is that the appellant has not shown these goods as inputs or they have added value of said goods in the value of taxable service provided by them. In fact the terminology of rule 2(k)(ii) is very clear and that does not bar or give qualification on adding value of said goods in the taxable service. Therefore said reasoning of the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order is not convincing. Further the another reasoning given by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order is that the said goods have not been consumed while providing output service. We find that the language of the statute is very clear. All inputs used for providing output service. We fail to understand from where the term consumed has been brought by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. In fact the input is required to be used for providing output service. Admittedly these inputs have been used by the appellant for providing output service. The similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:-

8. On going through the above said provision of Rule 2(k)(i) ibid, we find it deals with manufacturing activity. Admittedly, the appellants are providing output service, therefore, Rule 2k(ii) ibid, is relevant to the facts of the case in hand, wherein, it has been said that all goods, except light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil, motor spirit, commonly known as petrol and motor vehicles, used for providing any output service. The adjudicating authority has heavily relied on Explanation-2 to the said Rules as same has been discussed by the Tribunal in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. (supra). In fact, the explanation also clarified that inputs includes goods used in manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. But in the case in hand, the appellant is a service provider. Therefore, the said explanations has no relevance to the facts of this case. As per Rule 2(k)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 all goods are entitled for Cenvat Credit which are used for providing any output service. In this case nowhere it is disputed by any of the parties that the tower/BTS cabins were not used by the appellant for providing service namely Business Auxiliary Service. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. These facts have not been appreciated by the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority heavily relied on the definition of inputs as per Rule 2(k)(i) and Explanation-II to the said Rule. We also find that before discharging their Service Tax liability, the appellant narrated activity undertaken by them to the Revenue and Revenue directed the appellant to pay Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service on the said activity. In that case the Cenvat Credit taken on the inputs for providing that service is entitled for Cenvat Credit as per Rule 2(k)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority has heavily relied upon the decision of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra); in the said case the facts are totally different to the facts of the case in hand. In fact in that case appellant was engaged in providing cellular telephone service and as per Board Circular No. 137/315/2007-CX-4, dated 26-2-2008, it is clarified that no Cenvat Credit on towers and BTS cabin is permissible for Cellular Phone Service Provider. In the instant case, the towers and the cabins are used by the appellant as Passive Telecom Infrastructure for providing output service namely Business Auxiliary Service as declared by the appellant to the department in 2005 and agreed to by the department in their reply dated 20-9-2005.

9. We further find that in this case the intention of the appellant and their client (Operators) is to confer

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the Operators a right to install active infra network equipment including GSM Antenna and BTS equipment, and to extend and receive, highly specialized technical service, which includes the provision of creation and maintenance of highly controlled artificial temperatures and humidity levels at all times and continuous power supply at the prescribed voltage so as to operate the equipment of the operators, and thus be conducive to the functioning of the Operators signal transmission for their ultimate consumers. In these circumstances, we hold that appellant are entitled for input service credit on towers and cabin, which have been used by the appellant for providing output service under the category of Business Auxiliary Service in the facts of the case. 11. In view of the above analysis we hold that appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat Credit on the goods in question and same may be treated as input for providing output service. Therefore we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. As we have decided the issue on merit, therefore we are not going into the issue of limitation.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 P.C. Rajeevan & Another Versus Deputy Commissioner, Hr & Ce (Admn) Department, Kozhikode & Others High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Punjab National Bank, NOIDA Uttar Pradesh Versus State Bank of India Sam Brnach, New Delhi (Branch Code-04109), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Sarine Technologies Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Prachi Bhardwaj Versus Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation Through Partner Dhaval Dahyabhai Diyora High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
27-01-2020 S. Krishnamurthy Versus The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-01-2020 Jkm Infra Projects Limtied, Noida Thru. Directors Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-01-2020 M/s. LG. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Greater Noida Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-01-2020 Mayur Farm Pvt. Ltd. Versus Alok Tandon,Chairman N.O.I.D.A. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-01-2020 Doddanavar Brothers V/S C.C., C.E. & S.T-Belgaum Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Bangalore
10-01-2020 Doddanavar Brothers (mine Owners) Versus C.C., C.E. & S.T-Belgaum Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Riba Textiles Ltd V/S Commissioner of CE & ST, Panchkula Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-01-2020 M/s. M.A Steels Pvt. Ltd. Kanjikode, Palakkad (Kerala) & Others Versus C.C.,C.E.& S.T-Calicut Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
07-01-2020 M.A. Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Others V/S C.C., C.E. & S.T., Calicut Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
06-01-2020 Phoenix International Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida-I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
03-01-2020 Torel Controls LLP V/S C.E., S.T., Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Tax, Mangalore Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
20-12-2019 Government Medical College And Post Graduate Institute & Super Specialty Hospital Versus H.C.L. Infosystemes Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-12-2019 M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Taranga Technologies, Andhra Pradesh Versus M/s. Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2019 W.N. Allal Sundaram Versus The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department & Others Supreme Court of India
07-11-2019 Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Director Versus Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Magesh High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-10-2019 K. Gopinath Versus The Commissioner, HR & CE, Nungambakkam, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 Dr. C.T. Kiruba Versus Joint Commissioner, HR & C.E., Administration Department, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-08-2019 Siemens Enterprise Communications Ptv Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Himachal Pradesh
28-08-2019 K.N. Reddy Versus The Commissioner HR& CE Department Nungambakkam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dinesh D. Shelar High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 Associate High Pressure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
23-07-2019 M/s. N.L. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam South, Represented by C.V. Varghese, Director, Irinjalakuda Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin High Court of Kerala
17-07-2019 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-06-2019 C.E. Manjula Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary To Government, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-05-2019 Amarnath Versus H.C.L. Infosystem Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-05-2019 Arjun Technologies (India) Ltd Versus Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
23-05-2019 Treasurer-cum-Secretary, Tiruppani Committee and Administrative Officer of Pariyur Kondathu Kaliamman Temple by its Executive Officer, Appointed by the HR & CE Department, Pariyur, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District Versus Aries Nandhakumar, Pudukhadu Mariamman Koil Veethi, Pudhupalayam and partner, Nandhi Transports and Elite of Gobi Living Pudupalayam, Gobichettipalayam High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Exelan Networking Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Premdoss Samson, Adyar & Others Versus M/s. Cadensworth India Limited, Merged with M/s. Redington India Ltd., Rep. by K. Shanmugam, Senior Manager Accounts, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2019 M/s. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Directors & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, By the Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Another High Court of Karnataka
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
29-03-2019 Noida Employees Association & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-03-2019 Ulo Systems LLC, Noida Versus DCIT (International Taxation) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
28-03-2019 Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Joint Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
22-03-2019 R. Krishnasamy Gopalar Versus Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Thanjavur & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-03-2019 NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shivamogga Smart City Limited A Public Limited & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-03-2019 CE Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Gas Authority of India Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-03-2019 Lalit Kumar Arya & Others Versus M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory International (Noida) & Others 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
01-03-2019 The Ramco Cements Ltd., Mathodu Hosadurga Taluk Versus C.C.,C.E. & S.T-Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangaluru Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
18-02-2019 M/s. DVB Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Siliguri Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
30-01-2019 A. Vennila Versus The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board, Chennai & Another 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
23-01-2019 Popular Vehicles & Services Limited, Kochi Versus C.C., C.E. & S.T, Cochin CCE Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
22-01-2019 M/s. Rane NSK Steering Systems (P) Ltd., Rep.by V. Sethuraman Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Now the Assistant Commissioner of CT & CE), Rajakilapakkam & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 P. Murali Versus M/s. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Nirmala Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2019 B. Shekar & Another Versus Stanpower Technologies Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Timothy Prakash & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-12-2018 Jagmal Joshi, Gautam Budh Nagar Versus Ito, Ward- 1(5), Noida Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi
18-12-2018 Endurance Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-12-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida Versus M/s. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
27-11-2018 M/s. RNS. Motors LTD. Unkal Hubli Versus C.C.,C.E.& S.T-Belgaum Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
27-11-2018 R.P. Castings PVT. LTD. Versus C.G.ST C & C.E. Alwar Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-11-2018 K.M. Projects & Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., Rep.,by its authorized signatory A. Suresh Kumar, Chennai Versus M/s. Bhanu Constructions Co.Ltd., (A1) Rep.,by its Managing Director B.V. Rao & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2018 M/s. FCI Technologies Services Limited, Cochin Versus THE Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-11-2018 Samir Agrawal A-206 Versus ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
02-11-2018 Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited, Chennai & Others Versus Netsweeper Inc, A Company having its registered office at Ontario, Canada, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, N. Krishnan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2018 Swaranjeet Singh Versus Melco Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-10-2018 R. Kulantaivel & Others Versus The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2018 Income Tax Office, Ward-1(4) Versus Covidh Technologies Limited Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
15-10-2018 Vsoft Technologies Private Versus Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
12-10-2018 HCL Technologies Ltd, ELCOT, Madurai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Deputy Inspector of Labour,III Circle, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-10-2018 K. Kuppusamy , Manager, Ellappalayam Soorikattu Iyyan @ Semmanda Gounder Vazhipattu Sabai otherwise also called as Arulmigu Ellappalayam Kavadi Kattalai Versus The Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2018 M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Versus CGST, CE, Jabalpur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
28-09-2018 Rajib Kumar Deb Versus The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Noida & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-09-2018 Advanced Creative Technologies Limited Versus D4 Cash Investors Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
20-09-2018 M/s. Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, P. Kailasam & Another Versus M/s.R.G. Network @ M/s.Raghavendra Cable Vision, Represented by N.M. Devaraj High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2018 Maha Thejo Mandala Sabha, Rep.by its Secretary M. Jayaraman Versus The Assistant Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Department/Fit Person, Mayuranatha Swami Temple, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-09-2018 Meru Consultants & Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Subramanian, Chennai Versus The Commissioner, Chennai City Municipal Corporation, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2018 Rajnish Kohli Versus HCL Technologies Ltd. High Court of Delhi
04-09-2018 The Acit, Corp Circle-291) Versus M/s. Prudent Technologies P. Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin
24-08-2018 Bizdata Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Ito Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
23-08-2018 M/s. KHEC Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Authorized Representative Paraman, Chennai Versus R.S. Gowrishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2018 M/s. Bebo Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Dcit, Mohali Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
16-08-2018 Atcom Technologies Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
14-08-2018 Simbus Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vector E-Commerce Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 M/s. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. Versus Macquarie Bank Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
08-08-2018 Escorts Ltd. Versus CGST C.C & C.E. Dehradun Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
06-08-2018 M/s. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Archana Verma High Court of Delhi
06-08-2018 J.K. Cement Works Versus CE & ST-Dehradun Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
02-08-2018 Prem Chandra Sharma Versus Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-08-2018 Transvahan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, S.R. Venkatesan & Another Versus Sepson India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Executive Director/ Chief Executive Officer, Ananthraj Hardar Nabhiraj & Others High Court of Karnataka