The issue involved excess credit utilisation beyond the 20% cap in certain months. The Tribunal held that the rule does not mandate monthly computation and must be assessed annually. The key takeaway is that compliance with overall yearly limits is sufficient under Rule 6.
The issue was whether valuation should be based on cost under Rule 8 or transaction value. The Tribunal held that Rule 8 does not apply when goods are also sold to independent buyers. The key takeaway is that mixed clearances require valuation under Rule 4, not cost-based valuation.
The tribunal held that steel items used for maintenance and repair of manufacturing machinery fall within the scope of inputs used in relation to manufacture. The demand for reversal of Cenvat credit and penalty was set aside.
Tribunal held that airline promotional packages including airfare, accommodation, and transfers do not qualify as tour operator service because airline did not plan or organize tours. Service Tax demand raised under this category was therefore set aside.
CESTAT held that once Cenvat credit is reversed along with interest, it amounts to non-availment of credit, allowing the assessee to retain the benefit of the abatement notification.
The Tribunal remanded the refund case after finding that the taxpayer should be given an opportunity to produce documents proving that the tax burden was not passed on. The adjudicating authority must reconsider the claim after examining the evidence.
CESTAT Kolkata held that horticulture activities such as garden maintenance and plant care fall within agricultural services and are not liable to Service Tax. The Tribunal therefore set aside the major portion of the tax demand raised on this turnover.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is not sustainable in absence of cogent, tangible or corroborative evidence linking connection of appellant in fraudulent export by forming a syndicate. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and penalty is set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism [RCM] raised merely on the basis of figures appearing in Balance Sheet without classifying the category of service is not sustainable.
CESTAT held that local transportation of goods, even with incidental loading, cannot be taxed as cargo handling when contracts are divisible. The service tax demand and penalty were therefore set aside.
