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.
The case examined whether authorities could revoke a G-card under existing regulations. The Tribunal held that no such power exists and ordered restoration of the G-card.
The issue involved enhancement of value of imported second-hand machinery. The Tribunal held that rejection of the load port certificate was unjustified, restoring the declared transaction value.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again under RCM if already paid by the service provider. However, the benefit applies only when full payment is conclusively proven.
The issue was whether seat adjustment components qualify as seat parts or auto parts. CESTAT held they are integral seat parts under CTI 9401, overturning reclassification and duty demand.
Composite contracts involving supply of materials could not be taxed under construction or other service categories and only the service portion was liable to tax.
The case involved a refund claim filed years after the taxpayer became aware of excess payment. The Tribunal held that delay under Section 11B barred the claim, leading to dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not identify the relevant provision under Business Auxiliary Services. It held that absence of specific legal basis renders the demand unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that imports across multiple consignments without one-to-one correlation cannot be treated as complete drones. It set aside the denial of provisional release.
