The case examined whether services involving supply of materials could be taxed under construction-related categories. The Tribunal ruled that these are works contract services requiring proper classification. The failure to do so rendered the demand unsustainable.
The case addressed whether penalty can be imposed without proof of foreign origin. The Tribunal ruled that mere suspicion or trader opinion is insufficient. It set aside penalty due to lack of evidence.
CESTAT held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It set aside entire tax demand due to lack of intent to evade.
The Tribunal held that service recipients are not liable for Service Tax where the liability rests with the service provider. It set aside demands on security and car hiring services while confirming tax only on conceded services. The ruling clarifies correct allocation of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that although inclusion of freight and insurance was legally justified, the department failed to establish suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable and the demand was quashed.
The case examined whether goods were actually supplied against invoices. The Tribunal ruled that lack of infrastructure and transport evidence indicated non-genuine transactions, justifying penalty.
The Tribunal held that demand based on disclosed records cannot invoke extended limitation. It ruled that absence of fraud or suppression renders such demand time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the certificate issued by an authorized institution was valid. It ruled that absence of contrary evidence makes penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal examined whether credit can be denied due to non-existent supplier addresses. It held that absence of evidence proving non-receipt of services invalidates such denial. The ruling confirms that valid invoices and payment proof are sufficient to sustain credit.
The case examined whether delay in filing supplementary Bills of Entry warrants penalty. The Tribunal ruled that delay caused by post-clearance discovery of excess goods is justified. The decision emphasizes discretionary waiver under Section 46(3).
