The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed where tax liability arises from retrospective amendment and conflicting legal views. The absence of clear liability during the relevant period justified waiver.
The Tribunal interpreted Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to allow refund of taxes paid under existing law. It held that such claims survive the repeal of earlier statutes. The appeal was allowed and remanded.
The case examined whether delay in filing supplementary Bills of Entry warrants penalty. The Tribunal ruled that delay caused by post-clearance discovery of excess goods is justified. The decision emphasizes discretionary waiver under Section 46(3).
The case examined whether small compositional changes affect eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal ruled that even minor variations matter under tax law. The decision emphasizes strict compliance with notification conditions.
CESTAT Chennai held that proportionate Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only in case of common input services. The same cannot be applied to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods. Accordingly, demand held as unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty recovery under section 28AAA of the Customs Act justifiable since IT services fraudulently mis-declared as ‘Management Consulting Services’ to obtain benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Accordingly, company appeal is dismissed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that amount deposited during the course of investigation is not voluntary payment but it was deposit made under mistaken notion and hence doesn’t amount to duty. Accordingly, interest is eligible on amount refunded.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Air Travel Agents are not required to pay Service Tax on the Commission received by them from CDS/CRS companies. Also held that Air Travel Agents need not include the commission on fuel surcharge in the basic fare for payment of Service Tax.
The tribunal held that proportionate reversal of credit for trading is sufficient compliance. It ruled that full reversal under Rule 6(3A) is not mandatory.
The tribunal held that sale through regional offices does not amount to trading. It found that the goods were manufactured and duty was paid. The ruling clarifies distinction between manufacturing and trading.
