The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be imposed without clear evidence of involvement or abetment. Key takeaway: mere allegations are insufficient.
The Court held that disputed issues and ongoing statutory proceedings cannot be challenged through a writ petition. It emphasized that proper remedies must be pursued before competent forums.
Tribunal held that non-compliance with earlier appellate directions requires fresh adjudication. Key takeaway: appellate authorities must follow binding instructions.
The Tribunal ruled that exemption under Section 11(2) should not be denied solely due to delayed filing of Form-10. It directed reconsideration where the form was available during assessment.
The Supreme Court dismissed SLPs and upheld the High Court’s finding that reassessment notices lacked tangible material. The ruling reinforces that mere survey findings cannot justify reopening of assessments.
The tribunal remanded the case after finding insufficient evidence to prove that refund and Cenvat credit were not claimed on the same services. Refund eligibility will depend on verification of non-availment of dual benefits.
Court found that the appellant failed to clearly identify which exceptional clause applied. Since the tax effect was below Rs.2 crores and no valid exception was demonstrated, the Court held that there was no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application were dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of a Nodal Ministry certificate cannot deny exemption when goods were used in the intended project. The decision emphasizes substance over procedural compliance.
The court declined to decide intermediary classification and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority. All issues were kept open for independent adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside orders where the assessee failed to appear and granted another opportunity. It emphasized adherence to natural justice while imposing a cost.
