The Tribunal held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proving intent to evade tax. Since no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement was established, the demand was time-barred. The key takeaway is that limitation cannot be stretched merely due to audit findings.
The tribunal held that exemption under Notification No. 42/2012 cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met. Minor procedural lapses were found insufficient to reject the claim.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where the appellant merely acted as a broker without handling goods. Absence of possession or direct involvement made Rule 26 inapplicable.
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.
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 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 issue was whether post-manufacturing expense deductions on a weighted average basis are admissible. The Tribunal held that earlier rulings in the same case had settled the issue, leading to cancellation of demand and penalties.
The Tribunal ruled that before 01.04.2016 Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution of credit by ISDs. As the disputed period fell within that timeframe, denial of credit on proportionality grounds was unsustainable.
The tribunal held that amounts recovered from employees as notice pay for leaving employment early do not constitute a taxable service. It ruled that such payments are compensation for contract breach and not consideration for a declared service.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used in generation of electricity is admissible only to the extent the electricity produced and utilized in the factory of production and not on the portion of electricity transferred/sold to the grid.
