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.
The Tribunal examined whether leasing property to a company makes it taxable. It held that actual use determines taxability, not the identity of the lessee. Since the property was used for residential purposes, service tax demand was quashed.
The case addressed whether authorities can change the taxable category during adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice is the foundation and cannot be altered. The demand was set aside as it exceeded the scope of the notice.
The Tribunal held that although inclusion of freight and insurance was legally justified, the department failed to establish suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable and the demand was quashed.
