The issue was whether penalty can be imposed without fraud or suppression. The Tribunal upheld penalty, holding that Rule 25 read with Section 11AC allows up to 10% penalty even without mens rea.
The Tribunal held that differential CVD cannot be demanded without evidence linking the importer to MRP alteration. Allegations based on assumptions and third-party actions were rejected.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable where service tax and interest are paid before issuance of notice. Absence of fraud or suppression entitled the assessee to relief.
The issue was denial of credit due to post-amendment invoicing. The Tribunal held that credit is admissible since services were completed before the cut-off date.
The Tribunal held that washing, screening, and impurity removal convert ore into concentrate under deeming provisions. As a result, exemption applicable only to ores was denied.
The Tribunal held that input service credit is fully admissible before 01.04.2011 but restricted thereafter for construction-related services. It clarified eligibility based on amended exclusion provisions.
The case examined whether procedural violations in transfers between EOUs justify duty demands. The Tribunal held that such lapses alone are insufficient and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The tribunal examined whether repair and maintenance services provided to Naval Authorities are taxable. It held that such services are not liable to service tax as they are not linked to commercial activities.
The tribunal examined whether the quantity of misappropriated inputs could be revised in remand proceedings. It held that unchallenged earlier findings attain finality and cannot be altered. The key takeaway is that remand cannot reopen settled issues without appeal.
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.
