CESTAT held that regular filing of returns and disclosure during audits negates allegations of suppression of facts. The demand based on extended limitation was therefore unsustainable.
he tribunal refused to accept the appellant’s submissions regarding manpower supply service to five hotels, relying on reasons recorded in related appeals decided on the same date.
CESTAT Delhi held that job work processes undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. Since the activity could not simultaneously be treated as an exempted service, the Cenvat demand was set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement of witness recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 112(a) is set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. Thus, penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that mere mention of Section 112 without detailed imputation in the show cause notice cannot justify penalty. Violation of CHA Regulations alone was found insufficient to sustain penal action.
CESTAT Delhi set aside confiscation and penalty after finding no evidence that the vehicle owner knew it was used for transporting smuggled gold. The ruling clarifies that absence of knowledge defeats action under Sections 115 and 117 of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure contemplated u/s. 138B of the Customs Act not followed. Accordingly, penalties-imposed u/s. 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that subscription and redemption of mutual fund units do not constitute trading under Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. As units are cancelled upon redemption and not transferred, no CENVAT credit reversal or extended limitation applies.
The Tribunal held that service tax paid under a partner’s registration can be adjusted against the firm’s liability. However, liability as a sub-contractor was upheld.
