The Tribunal examined whether inputs were received in the factory before availing credit. It found no conclusive evidence supporting the department’s allegation. The key takeaway is that demands cannot be sustained on presumptions.
The Tribunal examined whether payments for flats were received post-completion. It directed verification of ledger records to determine tax liability. The key takeaway is that timing of receipts is crucial in construction service taxation.
The Tribunal examined taxability of receipts from electricity distribution activities. It held that such services, including ancillary activities, are exempt. The key takeaway is that bundled services inherit exemption of the principal activity.
The Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
The Tribunal examined whether waste and scrap from cable manufacturing are excisable. It held that such waste is not “manufactured goods” under law. The key takeaway is that non-manufactured by-products are not liable to duty.
The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled that agreements for such spaces are invalid and cannot confer membership rights, restoring the earlier rejection order.
The Tribunal held that distribution of Cenvat credit among units was optional prior to the 2016 amendment. Availing full credit in one unit was found legally valid, leading to the setting aside of the demand.
The department alleged irregular credit distribution under Rule 7. The Tribunal found full disclosure in statutory returns and no mala fide intent. The ruling emphasizes transparency as a defense against extended limitation.
The department argued that credit must be split across units. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution. The decision clarifies the scope of ISD credit rules before amendment.
The Tribunal held that audit under section 44AB depends on turnover, not taxability of income. Exempt entities must still comply if limits are exceeded.
