Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mccann Erickson (India) Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Gst & Central ... on 14 January, 2019

Author: S. Ravindra Bhat

Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Prateek Jalan

$~28
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      SERTA 1/2019 & CM Appl. 1273-75/2019

       MCCANN ERICKSON (INDIA) LTD                ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr.V.Lakshmi Kumaran, Mr.Karan
                             Sachdev & Ms.Avisha Khatri,
                             Advocates
                                     versus
       PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST &
       CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI EAST                 ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr.Amit Bansal, Sr.Std.Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
                           ORDER

% 14.01.2019 CM Appl. 1274/2019 (for delay) For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

CM Appl. 1275/2019

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. SERTA 1/2019 & CM Appl. 1273/2019 (stay)

1. Admit.

2. Following questions of law arises:

(i) Did Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] fall into error in holding that during the period from April, 2006 to March, 2008, the Assessee/Appellant could not SERTA 1/2019 page 1 of 2 have discharged its tax liability by utilizing the credit available to it, given that the explanation to Rule 3(4) of the Credit Rules, 2004 was brought into force from 1st July, 2012.
(ii) Did the CESTAT fall into error in holding that proviso under Section 73(1) was unwarranted.
(iii) Whether in the circumstances, the penalty was lawfully imposed.

3. Notice. Mr.Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice.

4. List on 27th March, 2019.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents are restrained from recovering the amounts in question.



                                                      S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J


                                                         PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 14, 2019
„hkaur‟




SERTA 1/2019                                                             page 2 of 2