The issue involved taxability of subsidies received from BCCI. The Tribunal held that such payments are grants-in-aid and not consideration for services. The takeaway is that grants for promotion of sports are not taxable.
The case examined conflicting allegations of non-movement and diversion of goods. The Tribunal held that such inconsistency, along with prior duty payment, made the demand unsustainable.
The case examined whether despatch money received for faster cargo unloading qualifies as taxable port service. The Tribunal held it is a contractual incentive linked to freight terms, not consideration for a service, and hence not taxable.
The issue involved classification of services related to rake movement. The Tribunal held that deployment of staff falls under manpower supply, not cargo handling. The takeaway is that correct classification determines tax liability.
The Tribunal examined whether construction and infrastructure activities were taxable under WCS or CRCS. It held that presence of transfer of property in goods justified classification under WCS. The key takeaway is that specific taxable entries override earlier classifications once introduced.
The Tribunal examined whether processing of tobacco leaves amounts to taxable service under BAS. It held that no new distinct product emerges from threshing and drying. The key takeaway is that activities not altering essential characteristics remain outside BAS.
The Tribunal examined whether penalties can continue after the main dispute is settled. It held that co-noticees have no independent liability once the primary demand is resolved. The ruling clarifies the consequential nature of such penalties.
The Tribunal examined whether land value can be included in taxable service value. It held that such value must be excluded and directed recomputation. The key takeaway is that sale of land cannot be taxed as service.
The Tribunal examined whether interest recovery under Section 75 is subject to limitation. It held that limitation applicable to principal tax demand also applies to interest. The key takeaway is that interest cannot be recovered beyond prescribed time limits.
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.
