The Tribunal held that no documentary evidence connected the Customs Broker to the alleged fraudulent exports. Revocation and penalty were quashed for want of proof.
The case examined whether authorities could revoke a G-card under existing regulations. The Tribunal held that no such power exists and ordered restoration of the G-card.
Composite contracts involving supply of materials could not be taxed under construction or other service categories and only the service portion was liable to tax.
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice did not identify the relevant provision under Business Auxiliary Services. It held that absence of specific legal basis renders the demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charge of clandestine removal of goods cannot be proved on the basis of private records recovered during the course of investigation in the absence of any corroborative evidence in support. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that the Department failed to prove that goods classified as trading were actually manufactured by the assessee. In absence of proper investigation, excise demand and penalties were held unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that coal extraction and processing constitute manufacture, not mining services, making service tax demand unsustainable and reinforcing mutual exclusivity of tax levies.
The Tribunal held that including income from scrap sale, already subject to excise duty, in service tax valuation would lead to double taxation. It ruled that such addition is not permissible and set aside the demand.
Clandestine removal could not be sustained on mere assumptions or third-party statements without corroborative evidence and statutory compliance under Section 9D.
The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely for non-submission of challans when supplier certification and evidence of tax payment exist. The ruling clarifies that substantive compliance prevails over procedural lapses.
