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.
The case focuses on systemic delays and technical shortcomings in the e-filing system. The Court directed the Department to file an affidavit addressing these concerns.
The issue was whether gross receipts should be treated as inclusive of service tax. The Tribunal held that where tax is not separately collected, cum-tax benefit must be granted. The matter was remanded for fresh computation.
The issue was whether Revenue appeals with low penalty amounts are maintainable. The Tribunal held that appeals below ₹50 lakh must be dismissed under CBIC litigation policy.
The case examined whether services involving supply of materials could be taxed under construction-related categories. The Tribunal ruled that these are works contract services requiring proper classification. The failure to do so rendered the demand unsustainable.
The ruling held that incomplete documentation or minor deficiencies cannot be sole grounds for denial of registration. It emphasized that such issues may be examined during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by relying on binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. It ruled that prior judicial decisions in the assessee’s own case justified deletion of disallowance.
The Tribunal held that recorded sales forming part of turnover cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. The key takeaway is that taxing gross sales again is impermissible in law.
The case examined reopening of assessment relying on earlier disallowance. The Court found that such disallowance had already been reversed by appellate authorities. The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of the notice.
