The issue was whether mark-to-market gains on forward contracts are taxable before maturity. The Court held that such gains are not taxable as they are not real income until actually realized.
The case examined whether small compositional changes affect eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal ruled that even minor variations matter under tax law. The decision emphasizes strict compliance with notification conditions.
The issue was whether failure to refund investor funds is time-barred. The Court held it is a continuing offence, rejecting the limitation defence. The key takeaway is that non-compliance persists until repayment is made.
CESTAT Chennai held that proportionate Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only in case of common input services. The same cannot be applied to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods. Accordingly, demand held as unsustainable.
The Court quashed the notice as it was based on a factually incorrect audit premise and lacked specific details. It held that vague notices violate natural justice and cannot sustain tax demands.
The judgment reiterates that additions under Section 68 cannot be based on presumptions or suspicion without supporting evidence. It held that the Assessing Officer must bring material on record before rejecting explanations.
The Court held that cash cannot be seized under GST provisions as it is excluded from the definition of “goods” and was not shown to be relevant to any proceedings. It directed immediate return of the seized amount, emphasizing limits on seizure powers.
The ruling addressed whether poultry feed premixes fall under vitamins or animal feed classification. It held that products designed for specific use in animal feeding, containing carriers and additives, are classifiable under Heading 2309, not 2936.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s argument that taxpayers must seek AO determination under Section 195(2) in all cases. It held that such obligation arises only when income is chargeable to tax in India. This ruling reduces procedural burden where taxability itself is absent.
Interest on customs refund was not automatic and depends on whether there was delay in processing attributable to the department, while granting relief in cases where reassessment and refund were delayed and denying it where refunds were issued within the statutory period.
