The Tribunal examined whether government grant-in-aid constituted taxable consideration. It held that reimbursement of capital expenditure without service linkage is not liable to service tax.
The Tribunal held that tobacco pouches under 10 grams are exempt from MRP-based valuation under Rule 34. As a result, Section 4A excise duty was not applicable.
The issue was whether gross receipts should be treated as inclusive of service tax. The Tribunal held that where tax is not separately collected, cum-tax benefit must be granted. The matter was remanded for fresh computation.
The issue was whether Revenue appeals with low penalty amounts are maintainable. The Tribunal held that appeals below ₹50 lakh must be dismissed under CBIC litigation policy.
The case examined whether services involving supply of materials could be taxed under construction-related categories. The Tribunal ruled that these are works contract services requiring proper classification. The failure to do so rendered the demand unsustainable.
The issue was whether delay beyond three months barred conversion of shipping bills. The Tribunal held that circular-imposed time limits are not binding and allowed amendment to grant substantive benefits.
The issue was whether missing country-of-origin markings could deny duty exemption. The Tribunal held that valid documents and identifiable goods suffice, allowing exemption.
The case addressed whether penalty can be imposed without proof of foreign origin. The Tribunal ruled that mere suspicion or trader opinion is insufficient. It set aside penalty due to lack of evidence.
CESTAT held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It set aside entire tax demand due to lack of intent to evade.
The Tribunal held that service recipients are not liable for Service Tax where the liability rests with the service provider. It set aside demands on security and car hiring services while confirming tax only on conceded services. The ruling clarifies correct allocation of tax liability.
