NAVEEN KUMAR vs THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX Advocate - SHOBHIT SAHARIA — CEXA/7/2026
Case under Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act No. 01 of 1944) Section 35-G. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010099242026
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
CEXA/5163/2026
Filing Date
05-06-2026
Registration No
CEXA/7/2026
Registration Date
05-06-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
APPEAL ( 3 )
Sub-Category
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NAVEEN KUMAR
Adv. ROHIT ARORA
Respondent(s)
THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX Advocate - SHOBHIT SAHARIA
THE COMMISSIONER
Adv. SHOBHIT SAHARIA
THE CUSTOMS
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Summary of CEXA /7/2026 The appeal filed by Naveen Kumar against the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax was admitted on two substantial questions of law: (1) whether CESTAT was justified in dismissing the appeal while ignoring amounts deposited by the appellant, and (2) whether CESTAT should have considered issues on merits if full deposit requirements were satisfied. The court adjourned the matter to the following week, granting the Revenue time to obtain instructions regarding a 2018 CESTAT Circular clarifying deposit requirements for second appeals. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CEXA /7/2026 The appeal filed by Naveen Kumar against the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax was admitted on two substantial questions of law: (1) whether CESTAT was justified in dismissing the appeal while ignoring amounts deposited by the appellant, and (2) whether CESTAT should have considered issues on merits if full deposit requirements were satisfied. The court adjourned the matter to the following week, granting the Revenue time to obtain instructions regarding a 2018 CESTAT Circular clarifying deposit requirements for second appeals. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts