Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
M/S. Bhushan Steel Ltd, vs Coms,C.Ex,Cus & S.Tax - Bbsr-I on 16 April, 2024 cites

Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-I on 17 April, 2017

"3.1 We find that the Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT, in the case of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai & anor. In Final Order No. A/85896-85897/2023 dated 12.05.2023, has referred to an earlier order of the CESTAT in Final Order No. 26 - Service Tax Appeal No. 42474 of 2014 - Final Order No. 40066 of 2024 dated 18.01.2024 - CESTAT, Chennai Page 45 of 56 Appeal No(s).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2022

Also, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Ruchi soya Industries Ltd's case, while disposing the writ appeal against the order of the single judge, 38 - Excise Appeal Nos. 1461 of 2011 and 20909 of 2016 - Final Order Nos. 21231-21232/2023 dated 09.11.2023 - CESTAT, Bangalore Page 55 of 56 Appeal No(s).: E/252,281,704/2011-DB & E/652, 653/2012-DB dismissed the appeal on merit. In none of the above cases, the principle governing the circumstances after abatement of the appeals on fulfilment of conditions under Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 by the Tribunal has been discussed and laid down."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. on 18 November, 2021

• Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.16 • UOI and others Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.17 • Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India18 • MC Nally Sayaji Engineering Limited Vs. CCGST, Bolpur19 • CCE & ST, Surat-II Vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.20 16 - 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SC 17 - 2022 (380) ELT 8 (SC).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Essar Steel Ltd on 22 October, 2019

In support of their stand that though the appeal does not survive the amount of pre-deposit has to be refunded to them, M/s. Tata Steel Limited have also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Voltas Limited v. Union of India & Ors.27 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4401 of 1998 as well as that of State of Gujarat v. Essar Steel Ltd.9 in Special Civil Application No. 18128 of 2015 (supra), inter alia pointing out that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Voltas Ltd.27 (supra) had categorically held that pre-deposit paid by an appellant is an amount so deposited pending appeal and is available for appropriation or disbursal consistent with the Final Order maintaining or setting aside the order of adjudication. Upon a close reading of the said ratio in law, it is seen that the deposit made in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is inextricably linked for its outcome with that of the Final Order, either maintaining or setting aside the adjudication order/order under challenge. In the present circumstances, however, as stated earlier, there is no such order in the instant case either setting aside or maintaining the same, as the appeal herein simply abates.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. Esl Steel Limited vs Principal Commissionoer Central Goods ... on 6 October, 2023

34. It may be worthwhile to mention that the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of ESL Steel Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise, Ranchi & ors.29, after considering several of the pronouncements referred to supra, including that of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.30, and was concerned with the question of availment of transitional credit (TRAN-1) wherein the concerned company had undergone liquidation and the current management was not a taxpayer for the impugned 29 - W.P.(T) No. 1995 of 2023 vide its judgement dated 05/11.07.2023 30 - (2021) 9 SCC 657 Page 49 of 56 Appeal No(s).: E/252,281,704/2011-DB & E/652, 653/2012-DB period of procurement of inputs or capital goods, but the changed management had felt the need for recovery of such credit, by virtue of the Resolution Plan having been approved, of M/s. Vedanta Ltd. in terms of Section 31(1) of the Code, held as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document
1