The tribunal held that issuing a show cause notice was invalid where tax liability was already declared in returns. The demand and penalties were set aside as proceedings lacked legal basis.
The tribunal held that Section 11B does not permit recovery of already sanctioned refunds. Recovery must follow separate legal provisions. The ruling clarifies limits of refund recovery powers.
The Tribunal held that cryogenic storage tanks qualify as capital goods when used for providing taxable services. It rejected the restriction that such goods must be used within the factory. The ruling confirms eligibility of credit based on functional use.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of duty on manufacture of pan-masala/gutka cannot be sustained since there was no evidence which proved that manufacturing activity took place before installation of pouch packing machine.
The Tribunal held that describing goods as painted steel sheets instead of painted galvanised steel sheets was not mis-declaration. It ruled that incomplete description does not justify confiscation or penalties.
The Tribunal emphasized that adjudication must remain within the allegations contained in the notice. It found that introducing new evidence during adjudication amounted to substituting the original grounds.
The Tribunal held that processes like washing, crushing, and sizing converted ore into concentrate under deemed manufacture provisions. As a result, exemption meant for ores was denied.
The issue was whether duty drawback demand can be raised on persons other than the exporter. CESTAT held that only the “person chargeable,” i.e., the exporter, can be targeted under Section 11A.
The issue involved whether credit could be availed when duties were paid via DEPB instead of cash. The Tribunal held that such payment qualifies for CENVAT credit. The takeaway is that mode of payment does not restrict credit eligibility.
The issue involved penalty on individuals claiming ignorance of smuggled gold. The Tribunal rejected the defence due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies. The takeaway is that unsupported claims cannot negate liability.
