The Tribunal held that cryogenic storage tanks qualify as capital goods when used for providing taxable services. It rejected the restriction that such goods must be used within the factory. The ruling confirms eligibility of credit based on functional use.
The Tribunal held that processes like washing, crushing, and sizing converted ore into concentrate under deemed manufacture provisions. As a result, exemption meant for ores was denied.
The issue involved whether credit could be availed when duties were paid via DEPB instead of cash. The Tribunal held that such payment qualifies for CENVAT credit. The takeaway is that mode of payment does not restrict credit eligibility.
The case examined whether despatch money received for faster cargo unloading qualifies as taxable port service. The Tribunal held it is a contractual incentive linked to freight terms, not consideration for a service, and hence not taxable.
The Tribunal examined whether construction and infrastructure activities were taxable under WCS or CRCS. It held that presence of transfer of property in goods justified classification under WCS. The key takeaway is that specific taxable entries override earlier classifications once introduced.
The Tribunal examined whether processing of tobacco leaves amounts to taxable service under BAS. It held that no new distinct product emerges from threshing and drying. The key takeaway is that activities not altering essential characteristics remain outside BAS.
The Tribunal examined whether land value can be included in taxable service value. It held that such value must be excluded and directed recomputation. The key takeaway is that sale of land cannot be taxed as service.
The Tribunal examined whether inputs were received in the factory before availing credit. It found no conclusive evidence supporting the department’s allegation. The key takeaway is that demands cannot be sustained on presumptions.
The Tribunal examined whether payments for flats were received post-completion. It directed verification of ledger records to determine tax liability. The key takeaway is that timing of receipts is crucial in construction service taxation.
The department alleged irregular credit distribution under Rule 7. The Tribunal found full disclosure in statutory returns and no mala fide intent. The ruling emphasizes transparency as a defense against extended limitation.
