The Tribunal remanded disputes over denied CENVAT credit and export of services after noting that documentary verification and disclosure of the departmental report were necessary.
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand invoking extended period of limitation cannot be sustained since there was bona fide that services fall under negative list. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
The Tribunal held that service tax liability cannot be determined merely from Form 26AS entries without examining the nature of services. It set aside a ₹47.96 lakh demand after finding that the services were exempt road and canal construction works.
The Tribunal held that an amount paid under protest before adjudication cannot be treated as duty under the Central Excise Act. It ruled that interest at 12% per annum must be paid from the date of deposit until refund.
The Tribunal held that once records were audited and within departmental knowledge, extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked again, rendering the demand time-barred.
CESTAT held that dummy export documents prepared for internal charge calculation did not amount to fraud. With no evidence of misuse, penalties on the CFS and its officials were quashed.
The appellate authority rejected the customs appeal solely on limitation, holding it was filed far beyond the maximum period permitted under law. The ruling underscores that statutory timelines are absolute and merits cannot be examined once delay exceeds the condonable limit.
CESTAT Allahabad held that the case of imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act would be covered under regulation 3 (2) (c) and hence appellant is not eligible for grant of License for Private Warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Allahabad held that finding recorded by Commissioner (A) in earlier round of litigation have attained finality. Accordingly, the attempt to re-agitate the same issue in subsequent proceedings is barred by principles of Res Judicata. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that extended period of limitation is not invocable since alleged inadmissible cenvat credit was duly reflected in the return. Accordingly, demand beyond normal period of limitation set aside.
