CESTAT set aside demand on Mobilization advance which was not consistent with law

Gammon India Ltd Vs CST (CESTAT Mumbai) The Mumbai CESTAT, in Gammon India Ltd Vs. CST held that demand on Mobilization advance is not consistent with law and deserves to be set aside. Proviso to Section 2(31) of the CGST Act 2017 provides that deposits shall not be considered as payment made unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration. Thereby mobilization advance can be a deposit, and GST to be paid only on adjustment against the Bill. FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT This appeal of M/s Gammon India Ltd, against order-in-original no. 31/STC-V/SKD/16-17 dated 9th August 2016 o...