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.
The Tribunal examined whether payments for flats were received post-completion. It directed verification of ledger records to determine tax liability. The key takeaway is that timing of receipts is crucial in construction service taxation.
The Tribunal examined taxability of receipts from electricity distribution activities. It held that such services, including ancillary activities, are exempt. The key takeaway is that bundled services inherit exemption of the principal activity.
The Tribunal examined whether waste and scrap from cable manufacturing are excisable. It held that such waste is not “manufactured goods” under law. The key takeaway is that non-manufactured by-products are not liable to duty.
The Tribunal held that distribution of Cenvat credit among units was optional prior to the 2016 amendment. Availing full credit in one unit was found legally valid, leading to the setting aside of the demand.
The department alleged irregular credit distribution under Rule 7. The Tribunal found full disclosure in statutory returns and no mala fide intent. The ruling emphasizes transparency as a defense against extended limitation.
The department argued that credit must be split across units. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution. The decision clarifies the scope of ISD credit rules before amendment.
The issue involved excess credit utilisation beyond the 20% cap in certain months. The Tribunal held that the rule does not mandate monthly computation and must be assessed annually. The key takeaway is that compliance with overall yearly limits is sufficient under Rule 6.
The issue was whether valuation should be based on cost under Rule 8 or transaction value. The Tribunal held that Rule 8 does not apply when goods are also sold to independent buyers. The key takeaway is that mixed clearances require valuation under Rule 4, not cost-based valuation.
