The Tribunal ruled that penalties under relevant provisions were unjustified since the credit was lawfully availed. The decision reinforces that penalties cannot stand without a valid underlying demand.
The tribunal examined whether goods confiscated as prohibited could be cleared domestically after a policy change. It held that beneficial amendments apply retrospectively, allowing home consumption upon payment of duty.
The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely for non-submission of challans when supplier certification and evidence of tax payment exist. The ruling clarifies that substantive compliance prevails over procedural lapses.
The tribunal examined whether the quantity of misappropriated inputs could be revised in remand proceedings. It held that unchallenged earlier findings attain finality and cannot be altered. The key takeaway is that remand cannot reopen settled issues without appeal.
The Tribunal held that total business turnover, including non-taxable income, must be considered for exemption eligibility. Since the threshold was exceeded, refund was rightly rejected.
The issue was whether TCS applies to compounding fees collected from illegal mining activities. The court held that Section 206C(1C) applies only where rights are transferred through lease or licence. The key takeaway is that absence of contractual or legal rights excludes TCS liability.
The Tribunal examined whether government grant-in-aid constituted taxable consideration. It held that reimbursement of capital expenditure without service linkage is not liable to service tax.
The Tribunal held that tobacco pouches under 10 grams are exempt from MRP-based valuation under Rule 34. As a result, Section 4A excise duty was not applicable.
Authorities denied GST reimbursement on scrap treating it as non-specified goods. The court found this interpretation inconsistent with the scheme’s definition and exclusion list. The key takeaway is that benefits cannot be denied on grounds not supported by the notification.
