citedby: 29917835

Shv Lpg India Pvt Ltd vs Cst Ch on 28 February, 2025

Moreover, by the Final Order No.41930/2018 dated 27.06.2018 in the case of SHV LPG India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2018 (7) TMI 273-CESTAT-Chennai, for the prior period from September 2004 to March 2009, during which period also the appellants have taken the credit on common input services for the trading activity of LPG cylinders sold in their brand name as well as for providing output services of packing and storing LPG for 11 BPCL, this Tribunal while setting aside the demand for the extended period on the ground of limitation, has however sustained the demand for the normal period. The appellants have not shown that the aforementioned Final Order has been set aside and thus, inter se the parties, the same has attained finality. In such circumstances, in the light of the decisions of the Honourable High Courts of Madras and Delhi as well as the Tribunal decisions cited above, we find that the Tribunal decisions relied on by the appellants for seeking relief, cannot come to the aid of the appellants in this case.

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shv Lpg India Pvt Ltd vs Cst Ch on 28 February, 2025

Moreover, by the Final Order No.41930/2018 dated 27.06.2018 in the case of SHV LPG India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2018 (7) TMI 273-CESTAT-Chennai, for the prior period from September 2004 to March 2009, during which period also the appellants have taken the credit on common input services for the trading activity of LPG cylinders sold in their brand name as well as for providing output services of packing and storing LPG for 11 BPCL, this Tribunal while setting aside the demand for the extended period on the ground of limitation, has however sustained the demand for the normal period. The appellants have not shown that the aforementioned Final Order has been set aside and thus, inter se the parties, the same has attained finality. In such circumstances, in the light of the decisions of the Honourable High Courts of Madras and Delhi as well as the Tribunal decisions cited above, we find that the Tribunal decisions relied on by the appellants for seeking relief, cannot come to the aid of the appellants in this case.

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shv Lpg India Private Limited vs Cst Ch - Ii on 28 February, 2025

Moreover, by the Final Order No.41930/2018 dated 27.06.2018 in the case of SHV LPG India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2018 (7) TMI 273-CESTAT-Chennai, for the prior period from September 2004 to March 2009, during which period also the appellants have taken the credit on common input services for the trading activity of LPG cylinders sold in their brand name as well as for providing output services of packing and storing LPG for 11 BPCL, this Tribunal while setting aside the demand for the extended period on the ground of limitation, has however sustained the demand for the normal period. The appellants have not shown that the aforementioned Final Order has been set aside and thus, inter se the parties, the same has attained finality. In such circumstances, in the light of the decisions of the Honourable High Courts of Madras and Delhi as well as the Tribunal decisions cited above, we find that the Tribunal decisions relied on by the appellants for seeking relief, cannot come to the aid of the appellants in this case.

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Accentiv India Private Limited vs Cst Ch -Commissioner Of ... on 8 January, 2026

prior to 01.04.2011, and thereafter the law underwent multiple amendments; there existed divergent views possible on the eligibility of CENVAT credit in trading-related activities; there was no deliberate intent to evade tax, and the dispute was revenue-neutral in nature to a large extent; 15.2 The appellant relied on the decision of SHV LPG India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2025 (3) TMI 65 to contest penalty and seek waiver under Section 80. And therefore, there existed reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 80.