Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

M/S. Pgm, Bsnl Vs. Cce (St), Trichy

M/S. Pgm, Bsnl vs Cce (St), Trichy

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Mar 11, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/942321

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
ST/S/185 of 2009 & ST/309 of 2009
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. Pgm, Bsnl

Advocate Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondent.

Respondent

Cce (St), Trichy

Excerpt

no one is present on behalf of the appellant psu. there is also no adjournment request. the appellant psu has also not filed the necessary cod clearance despite two adjournments granted earlier. as such, the appeal along with the stay application is dismissed for want of cod clearance with the liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration of appeal in the event of obtaining cod clearance later on.

Full Judgment

No one is present on behalf of the appellant PSU. There is also no adjournment request. The appellant PSU has also not filed the necessary COD clearance despite two adjournments granted earlier. As such, the appeal along with the stay application is dismissed for want of COD clearance with the liberty to the appellants to apply for restoration of appeal in the event of obtaining COD clearance later on.

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties M/S. Pgm, Bsnl vs Cce (St), Trichy Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Service Tax

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales