Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 10 August, 2015

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Haldia on 28 April, 2025

Appeal No.: ST/75470/2024-DB o Devang Paper Mills Ltd. v. UOI 2016 (1) TMI 389 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT o Falah Steel v. UOI 2016 (6) TMI 924 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT o Welspun Corp v. Commissioner 2023 (2) TMI 780 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD o Commissioner v. Tata Metaliks 2023 (6) TMI 10 - CESTAT KOLKATA o Sahara India TV Network Versus C.C.E. & S.T., Noida [2015 (10) TMI 2037 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], o Neyvili Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner 2018 (1) TMI 1055 - CESTAT CHENNAI 3.2. The appellant has also contested the demand confirmed on the ground of limitation. The appellant submits that there is no suppression of facts or intention to evade payment of service tax in the present case, as the service tax has already been paid by RHQ, New Delhi. Therefore, extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is not invocable in this case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nlc India Limited vs Jodhpur on 22 May, 2025

Service Tax Appeal No. 51614 of 2019 3.1 It is submitted that the amount recovered by the appellant is not a consideration for rendering a taxable service, as for an amount to qualify as consideration there has to be "quid pro quo" or "activity for such consideration". The appellant does not undertake any activity against recovery of such amount. Thus, there is no service as defined under Section 65 B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994 which is provided by the appellant. Hence, no demand is sustainable even under Section 66E(e) of the Act. 3.2 It is submitted that present proceedings are in continuation to the proceedings initiated against the Chennai unit of the appellant, wherein similar issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by Hon'ble CESTAT vide order dated 26.07.2021 reported at Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, CE & ST, Chennai with NLC India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST and CE, Trichy reprted as 2021 (7) TMI 1090- CESTAT Chennai. Further, appeal against the said order was withdrawn by the department as clarified in Circular No. 214/1/2023-ST dated 28.02.2023. Therefore, since, the issued stands settled in case of the appellant itself albeit different unit, present demand is liable to be set aside.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sundaram Finance Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Central ... on 25 June, 2025

6. The above ratio was followed by Chennai Bench in the case of Nayveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Chennai - 2021 (53) G.S.T.L. 401 (Tri.-Chennai) and hence, 7 we are of the view that the denial of refund by treating the receipt as 'liquidated damages' liable to Service Tax does not have any legal sanctity. Therefore, we accept the case of the Appellant and consequently, set aside the impugned order.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next