Dismissed

Commissioner of Service v. Mphasis Limited

Madras HC1 Jun 2017CMA/1860/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a special leave appeal challenging a CESTAT order regarding Cenvat credit refund without registration. Relying on a subsequent judgment in a similar matter decided the same day, the Court answered the framed questions in favor of the assessee and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the questions of law were answered in favour of the Assessee. No order as to costs.

Commissioner of Service Vs Mphasis Limited — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

C.M.A.No.1860 of 2016

¶6

Commissioner of Service Tax - III, "Newry Towers", 12th Main Road, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Chennai - 600 040.

... Appellant

Vs.

M/s.Mphasis Limited

(formerly known as M/s.AIG Systems Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,) The Lords -II, Northern Extension Area, Ekkaduthangal, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

¶12

.... Respondent

¶13

Appeal filed under Section 35G (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed in Final Order No.40525 of 2016, by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas For Respondent : M/s. Cynduja Crishnan

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJIV SHAKDHER,J.)

¶17

This appeal was admitted on 02.09.2016, when the following questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court:

¶18

"(a) Whether the decision of CESTAT in allowing refund of Cenvat credit, even without registration, is correct?

¶19

(b) Whether CESTAT is correct is not considering the safeguards, conditions and limitations, as stipulated in the Appendix to Notification No.05/2005-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006?

¶20

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s.mPortal Wireless Solutions Private Limited, when the said judgement was not accepted on merits, but de to low revenue effect?"

¶23

2.Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Appellant/Revenue says that the questions of law raised in the captioned appeal are covered against the Revenue, by virtue of the judgment dated 10.04.2017, passed in C.M.A.No.860 of 2017, titled: Commissioner of Service Tax-III v. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the questions of law, so framed, are answered in favour of the Assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench at Chennai.
+1 CC to M/s. Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate sr 39347
+1 CC to M/s. Hema MuraliKrishnan, Advocate sr 39529
C.M.A.No.1860 of 2016
SJ(CO)
sp/22/6

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Commissioner of Service v. Mphasis Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Service v. Mphasis Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Central Vs Customs, Excise and Service

Vsa Vaniga Valagam Vs the Additional Commissioner

The Commissioner of Customs Vs ,M/S. Anugraha Valve

Narashia Manji Patel Vs The Presiding Officer

M/S. Madras Cements Limited Vs Customs, Excise and Service

U.Ravi Vs the Commerical Tax Officer