The tribunal held that exemption under Notification No. 42/2012 cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met. Minor procedural lapses were found insufficient to reject the claim.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where the appellant merely acted as a broker without handling goods. Absence of possession or direct involvement made Rule 26 inapplicable.
The issue involved service tax demand on GTO services using Section 73. The Tribunal held that recipients governed by Section 71A cannot be proceeded against under Section 73. The demand was quashed due to procedural invalidity of the notice.
The Tribunal held that goods falling under the excluded category of the notification are not eligible for exemption. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was contrary to the express exclusion provision.
The authority held that penalty under Section 114AA cannot be imposed without proof of knowledge or intent. It ruled that absence of evidence linking the courier to Pakistan-origin goods warranted deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal held that input service credit is fully admissible before 01.04.2011 but restricted thereafter for construction-related services. It clarified eligibility based on amended exclusion provisions.
The case examined whether procedural violations in transfers between EOUs justify duty demands. The Tribunal held that such lapses alone are insufficient and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that excess service tax paid inadvertently does not qualify as tax under law. As a result, limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable and refund was allowed with interest.
Clandestine removal could not be sustained on mere assumptions or third-party statements without corroborative evidence and statutory compliance under Section 9D.
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.
