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 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.
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 tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed without direct evidence connecting the appellant to alleged overvalued exports. Mere suspicion and assumptions were found insufficient.
CESTAT Delhi held that statements recorded during investigation cannot be relied upon as evidence unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D—examination before adjudicating authority and admissibility determination—is followed.
The Tribunal held that the margin between purchase and sale of vehicles is trading profit, not commission. Service Tax demand on such margin was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that credit depends on the nature of duty and not the rate at which it is paid. The key takeaway is that concessional CVD does not bar CENVAT credit.
The Tribunal held that no documentary evidence connected the Customs Broker to the alleged fraudulent exports. Revocation and penalty were quashed for want of proof.
The case addressed whether insurance services qualify as input services. The Tribunal held that insurance linked to business assets is eligible for Cenvat credit, emphasizing indirect nexus with manufacturing.
The case examined whether a CHA can be penalized for allowing misuse of its licence. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, holding that lack of due diligence leading to smuggling attracts liability.
