The tribunal held that proportionate reversal of credit for trading is sufficient compliance. It ruled that full reversal under Rule 6(3A) is not mandatory.
The Tribunal examined a demand based on discrepancies between ITR data and service tax returns. It held that verification of tax payment under RCM by the recipient was necessary before confirming liability.
The case examined denial of credit on GTA services for outward transportation. The Tribunal held that FOR delivery terms made the buyer’s premises the place of removal, allowing credit.
The Tribunal allowed concessional duty on imported goods after noting that earlier decisions in identical matters had already settled the issue. It held that reliance on a set-aside order was unsustainable. The key takeaway is that binding precedents must be followed, and overturned orders cannot be relied upon.
The Tribunal held that time limits introduced later cannot apply retrospectively to deny amendment requests. The ruling clarifies that exporters can seek corrections for past errors during scheme transitions.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of duty on manufacture of pan-masala/gutka cannot be sustained since there was no evidence which proved that manufacturing activity took place before installation of pouch packing machine.
The issue was whether duty drawback demand can be raised on persons other than the exporter. CESTAT held that only the “person chargeable,” i.e., the exporter, can be targeted under Section 11A.
The Tribunal examined whether penalties can continue after the main dispute is settled. It held that co-noticees have no independent liability once the primary demand is resolved. The ruling clarifies the consequential nature of such penalties.
The Tribunal examined whether interest recovery under Section 75 is subject to limitation. It held that limitation applicable to principal tax demand also applies to interest. The key takeaway is that interest cannot be recovered beyond prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal examined statutory requirements of service, including consideration and parties involved. It held that absence of these elements makes the levy unsustainable. The decision clarifies the scope of taxable service.
