The Tribunal held that duty demand cannot be sustained without evidence showing how IGCR rules were violated. In absence of proof of improper clearance, the demand and penalty were set aside.
The issue involved denial of service tax refund on employee insurance services in an SEZ unit. The Tribunal held that such insurance services fall within authorised operations and cannot be excluded.
The case addressed whether a custodian could be held liable for duty when container contents differed from declared goods. The Tribunal held that without proof of tampered or broken seals, liability under section 45 cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal as time-barred was improper without proof of order delivery. The matter was remanded for verification of communication date.
The issue was whether penalty can be imposed without fraud or suppression. The Tribunal upheld penalty, holding that Rule 25 read with Section 11AC allows up to 10% penalty even without mens rea.
The Tribunal held that denial of CENVAT credit on car parking and rent-a-cab services was unsustainable as the issue is settled in favour of taxpayers, leading to allowance of refund.
Profit arising from purchase and sale of cargo space by a freight forwarder on principal-to-principal basis was trading income and not consideration for service, and therefore not liable to service tax under Business Support Service or otherwise.
The Tribunal held that differential CVD cannot be demanded without evidence linking the importer to MRP alteration. Allegations based on assumptions and third-party actions were rejected.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable where service tax and interest are paid before issuance of notice. Absence of fraud or suppression entitled the assessee to relief.
The issue was denial of credit due to post-amendment invoicing. The Tribunal held that credit is admissible since services were completed before the cut-off date.
