CESTAT Kolkata held that amount deposited during the course of investigation is not voluntary payment but it was deposit made under mistaken notion and hence doesn’t amount to duty. Accordingly, interest is eligible on amount refunded.
The tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where there is no intentional misdeclaration. The presence of seeds was detected only after testing. The ruling highlights the importance of proving mens rea for penalties.
The case addresses whether discrepancies between ITR/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns can justify a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal held that without independent verification, such demands are unsustainable and must be set aside.
The case examined whether transaction value can be rejected without inquiry. The Tribunal held that absence of investigation and proper procedure invalidates valuation enhancement.
The Tribunal held that demand based solely on Form 26AS and ITR data without corroboration is unsustainable. It set aside the entire tax demand along with penalties and interest.
The issue involved penalty on individuals claiming ignorance of smuggled gold. The Tribunal rejected the defence due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies. The takeaway is that unsupported claims cannot negate liability.
The issue involved taxability of subsidies received from BCCI. The Tribunal held that such payments are grants-in-aid and not consideration for services. The takeaway is that grants for promotion of sports are not taxable.
The case examined conflicting allegations of non-movement and diversion of goods. The Tribunal held that such inconsistency, along with prior duty payment, made the demand unsustainable.
The Tribunal examined taxability of receipts from electricity distribution activities. It held that such services, including ancillary activities, are exempt. The key takeaway is that bundled services inherit exemption of the principal activity.
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.
