The Court examined whether claims not filed during CIRP can be pursued later. It held that such claims stand extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan. The key takeaway is that only claims included in the plan survive.
The Court examined whether delay in completing disciplinary inquiry invalidates proceedings. It held that Rule 14(24) timelines are directory and do not automatically nullify proceedings without proof of prejudice.
The Tribunal examined whether inputs were received in the factory before availing credit. It found no conclusive evidence supporting the department’s allegation. The key takeaway is that demands cannot be sustained on presumptions.
The Tribunal examined whether payments for flats were received post-completion. It directed verification of ledger records to determine tax liability. The key takeaway is that timing of receipts is crucial in construction service taxation.
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 Tribunal examined whether addition under Section 68 could be made without seized evidence. It held that no addition is permissible in absence of incriminating material. The key takeaway is that search assessments must rely on concrete evidence.
The Tribunal examined whether waste and scrap from cable manufacturing are excisable. It held that such waste is not “manufactured goods” under law. The key takeaway is that non-manufactured by-products are not liable to duty.
The Tribunal held that distribution of Cenvat credit among units was optional prior to the 2016 amendment. Availing full credit in one unit was found legally valid, leading to the setting aside of the demand.
The issue was whether rejection of books and GP estimation was justified due to missing records. ITAT upheld the addition, ruling that failure to produce bills, vouchers, and stock records justified estimation.
The department alleged irregular credit distribution under Rule 7. The Tribunal found full disclosure in statutory returns and no mala fide intent. The ruling emphasizes transparency as a defense against extended limitation.
