TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rejects Appellant's challenges on demand and interest despite cenvat credit balance. Appeal admitted on substantial question of law.</h1> <h3>Kaydour Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Central GST Commissionerate</h3> The Court did not entertain the Appellant's challenges to the demand on merits as they were not contested before any authority. Additionally, the issue of ... Non-contest of demand by appellant on merits - demand of Interest under a situation where the Appellant always had balance in its cenvat credit account (more than the amount under dispute) throughout the disputed period - non-speaking order. The Appeal is admitted in the substantial question of law on non-speaking order only - other questions not maintainable and is dismissed. Issues:1. Contesting demand on merits before lower authorities and Tribunal.2. Confirmation of interest demand despite balance in cenvat credit account.3. Passing a nonspeaking order without findings on merits and submissions.Analysis:Regarding Question (a):The Tribunal's order noted that the Appellant did not contest the demands on merits before any authority. The Appellant's counsel argued that grounds challenging the demand on merits were raised in the Appeal's Memo. However, upon examination, it was found that the Tribunal did not record any submission regarding the merits of the demands. Consequently, the Court held that since no dispute on the merits of the demand was recorded by the Tribunal, no substantial question of law arises. Therefore, the question was not entertained.Regarding Question (b):The issue raised in this question was not brought before the Tribunal by the Appellant. The Appellant's counsel referred to the Commissioner's order where this submission was recorded, arguing that it should be considered. However, the Court held that unless an issue is raised before the Tribunal and adjudicated upon, no substantial question of law can be said to arise. Therefore, this question was not entertained.The Appeal was admitted based on the substantial question of law mentioned in point (c) above. The Respondent's counsel waived service, and the matter was to proceed on the admitted substantial question of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
