Topic
CESTAT Ahmedabad quashed service tax demand despite payment under wrong assessee code, ruling bonafide error negates evasion intent. The ruling clarifies that procedural lapses without fraudulent motive do not constitute non-payment under Section 73 Finance Act 1994, protecting taxpayers from extended limitation periods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002, ruling that statements alone are insufficient for imposing penalties without corroborative evidence and explicit invocation of the penal clause. The decision underscores the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in excise penalty proceedings, impacting manufacturers and corporate officers facing similar allegations.
CESTAT Ahmedabad holds that service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services cannot be imposed unless a consignment note is issued. The ruling clarifies that cargo handling contracts cannot be artificially split to attract RCM, impacting businesses relying on GTA services without proper documentation.