The Tribunal held that tax demand cannot be confirmed under a category not proposed in the show cause notice. It ruled that such reclassification violates settled legal principles and renders the demand invalid.
The tribunal examined whether imported rubber is liable to additional duty equivalent to cess. It upheld the levy by following earlier decisions and the appellant’s own case. The key takeaway is that consistent precedents were applied to sustain the demand.
The tribunal examined whether repair and maintenance services provided to Naval Authorities are taxable. It held that such services are not liable to service tax as they are not linked to commercial activities.
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 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.
