Issues: Whether the appellant is liable to reverse Cenvat credit attributable to 'coal tar' which emerged as an unintended by-product in the process of manufacture of refractory products and whether Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies.

Analysis: The question concerns applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where a by-product (coal tar) emerges incidentally during generation and cleaning of coal gas used as fuel for manufacture of dutiable refractory goods. The Tribunal applied the principle that where generation of a by-product is an inevitable technical necessity and the quantity of inputs required for manufacture of the dutiable final product does not change, it cannot be said that inputs have been used for manufacture of the by-product. The Tribunal relied on precedents establishing that in such circumstances the conditions of Rule 6(3) are not attracted and no proportionate reversal of credit is required. The Tribunal also noted that no input was specifically used to produce the coal tar and that the proceedings originated from Circular No.904/24/09-CX which was later withdrawn by Circular No.1027/15/2016-CX.

Conclusion: Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable and the appellant is not required to reverse any Cenvat credit attributable to the generation of coal tar; the impugned demand, penalty and related proceedings are set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Issues: Whether, for the purposes of issuing a certificate under Section 197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2025-26, the competent authority was required to allow deduction of the entire commission (68%) against the revenue attributed to the India Permanent Establishment (15% of total receipts) and accordingly fix the rate of tax withholding.

Analysis: The Court examined the Supreme Court decision in DIT v. Travelport Inc. which determined that 15% of the petitioner's receipts constitutes the revenue attributable to the Permanent Establishment in India, ascertained by FAR analysis. That 15% figure represents revenue attributable to the India PE and is not a ceiling on the allowability of related expenditures. The Tribunal in the cited decision treated the entire commission paid to distribution agents as deductible from the revenue attributed to the PE, and where such commission exceeded the attributed revenue, concluded no further income was taxable in India. Applying that legal framework to the facts accepted by the competent authority (15% revenue attributable to PE and 68% commission payable), the competent authority ought to have deducted the full commission from the attributed revenue. The Court declined to adjudicate the separate unresolved issue relating to income from non-India POS, but, to meet ends of justice, directed a proportionate certificate reflecting the petitioner's non-India POS share of total receipts.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 24.04.2025 and the certificate dated 17.04.2025 are set aside. A fresh tax-withholding certificate shall be issued within fifteen days fixing deduction of tax at the rate of 0.5% (reflecting the petitioner's non-India POS proportion of total receipts) in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be made for payments in respect of a charitable trust whose receipts are assessed under the head 'income from other sources' for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Analysis: The appeal concerns a registered charitable trust not engaged in business or profession, with income shown under the head 'income from other sources'. An amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 (effective 01.04.2018) and reflected in section 58(1A) renders the provisions corresponding to disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source applicable to 'income from other sources' only from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards. Prior to that effective date, the disallowance provisions did not apply to amounts chargeable as income from other sources. Applying this legal framework to the facts of A.Y. 2011-12 leads to the conclusion that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction to make the impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of payments of honorarium and computer fees made by the charitable trust.

Conclusion: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for the charitable trust's payments in A.Y. 2011-12 where the income is chargeable under 'income from other sources'; the impugned disallowance of Rs. 17,65,000 is set aside and the assessee's grounds of appeal are allowed.

Issues: Whether the Talathi was justified in retaining the Sales Tax and State Tax encumbrances in the 7/12 extract and mutation record of the property purchased by the petitioner in auction, despite the unchallenged DRT order directing deletion of such charges.

Analysis: The property had been sold in DRT proceedings, the sale was confirmed, and a sale certificate was issued and registered in favour of the petitioner. The DRT had specifically directed removal of the charges from the revenue record. The Tahsildar also rejected the departmental objection to Mutation Entry No. 846, and that order was not challenged. In these circumstances, the revenue authorities were bound to give effect to the order of the competent forum and could not continue the charge in the 'other rights' column. The petitioner's request under Article 226 was confined to correction of the revenue entry, and the objection based on the departmental claim under the MVAT framework was left open for appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The retention of the Sales Tax and State Tax encumbrances was unjustified, and the writ petition was allowed to the extent of prayer clause (a).

Ratio Decidendi: A revenue authority cannot continue an encumbrance in the record of rights against an auction purchaser when the competent adjudicatory forum has confirmed the sale and directed deletion of the charge, and that order has attained finality.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 38,57,530 as unexplained cash deposit can be sustained where books of account are accepted but detailed evidence of cash sales during the demonetisation period is not furnished to the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined (i) the acceptance of the assessee's books of account by the Assessing Officer, (ii) the nature of the business (regular scrap trading with declared quarterly sales), and (iii) the specific factual context of the demonetisation period which affected cash transactions. The Tribunal noted that the return was selected for scrutiny and that cash sales records had been filed but that the assessee failed to provide adequate details despite opportunities and was absent at hearings resulting in ex parte adjudication. Applying the principle that accepted books support the source of receipts but recognising the lack of specific corroborative details, the Tribunal exercised the power to estimate income from the alleged cash sales. The estimation method applied was 8% of the disputed cash deposits to determine taxable income.

Conclusion: The addition sustained in part; the Tribunal reduced the addition by allowing part relief and confirmed an assessed addition of Rs. 3,08,600 (being 8% of Rs. 38,57,530).

Issues: (i) Whether additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of sums received from M/s Frontier Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (later FM LLP) for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 are sustainable; (ii) Whether agricultural income of Rs.99,643 claimed for A.Y.2013-14 is liable to be disallowed; (iii) Whether long-term capital gain claimed under section 10(38) for A.Y.2015-16 on sale of shares of Pearl Agriculture Ltd. is rightly denied; (iv) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2014-15 survives after deletion of the related addition.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking section 68 to treat advances from FMPL as unexplained cash credits for A.Y.2013-14 (Rs.6.00 crore), A.Y.2014-15 (Rs.82.50 lakh) and A.Y.2015-16 (Rs.3,13,50,000).

Analysis: The Tribunal examined documentary evidence including registered agreements for purchase of the land, the unregistered investment agreement with FMPL, bank transaction records, audited financial statements and ITR of FMPL showing share capital and accumulated reserves. The authorities below did not point to specific discrepancies in the documents produced by the assessee and had not carried out independent inquiries with FMPL or its Assessing Officer; some adverse observations were based on findings in another assessment file. Relevant precedents and principles concerning section 68, burden shifting on proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, and the duty of the AO to investigate when prima facie evidence is produced were considered.

Conclusion: The assessee discharged the primary onus as to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions; in absence of contrary material or independent enquiry by the AO, additions under section 68 are not sustainable. Issue decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim of agricultural income of Rs.99,643 for A.Y.2013-14 should be disallowed.

Analysis: The assessee produced 7/12 extracts and earlier year acceptance of agricultural income of similar nature was on record. The Revenue produced no substantive contrary evidence to disprove the agricultural income claim.

Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the addition and allowed the agricultural income claim. Issue decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) for A.Y.2015-16 on sale of shares of Pearl Agriculture Ltd. (claimed at approx. Rs.1.80-1.83 crore) was correctly denied.

Analysis: The assessee proved purchase by preferential allotment, payments through banking channels, holding in demat for more than one year, sale on a recognised stock exchange through a registered broker and payment of STT; contract notes, demat statements and bank receipts were on record. The AO relied on general investigations and price fluctuations but did not bring specific adverse material linking the assessee to price manipulation, nor point to defects in the documentary proof. Authorities and case-law on LTCG claims for transactions effected through recognised exchanges and evidentiary standards were applied.

Conclusion: The conditions of section 10(38) were satisfied and denial of exemption was not justified; the Tribunal allowed the claim. Issue decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2014-15 survives where the underlying addition has been deleted.

Analysis: The penalty was predicated on the addition which the Tribunal deleted while deciding the section 68 issue for the relevant year; with the quantum deleted there is no basis to sustain penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) is deleted. Issue decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: On the considered facts and legal authorities, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the substantive issues (section 68 additions, agricultural income, section 10(38) exemption) and deleted the consequential penalty; the orders under appeal are set aside as indicated above.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee prima facie adduces cogent documentary evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction, the primary onus shifts and the Assessing Officer must undertake independent enquiries and point to specific discrepancies before invoking section 68; absent such enquiry or contrary material, additions under section 68 cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of Cenvat credit could be sustained when the adjudicating authority did not properly comply with the remand directions and travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invokable on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of Cenvat credit could be sustained when the adjudicating authority did not properly comply with the remand directions and travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The dispute after remand was confined to the alleged excess availment of Cenvat credit arising from the difference between the closing balance for September 2009 and the opening balance for October 2009. The appellant had placed the relevant invoices and credit register entries on record to explain the figures, but the impugned order did not deal with those documents in a reasoned manner. On the material examined, the opening balance for October 2009 matched the credit register and the closing balance shown for September 2009 was found to be erroneous. The adjudicating authority also proceeded on a new allegation regarding 100% credit on capital goods, which was not part of the original show cause notice.

Conclusion: The disallowance could not be sustained. The order was beyond the scope of the show cause notice and did not properly comply with the remand directions.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invokable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The demand was founded on the appellant's own records and the department did not establish any positive act of suppression, misdeclaration, or deliberate withholding of information. The record did not show mala fide intent, and the discrepancy was treated as an inadvertent accounting error. In the absence of evidence of suppression with intent to evade, the conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied, and penalty could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the penalty was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant succeeded on both the merits of the credit dispute and the limitation objection.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot be sustained where the adjudicating authority exceeds the scope of the show cause notice or fails to give effect to remand directions, and the extended period of limitation requires proof of positive suppression or deliberate withholding of information with intent to evade.

Issues: Whether the writ court should direct the appellate authority to entertain the petitioner's VAT appeal without insisting on the statutory pre-deposit or security requirement on the ground of financial hardship.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 requires an appeal to be entertained only after payment of admitted tax and interest and furnishing of a bank guarantee or adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The Court relied on the governing principle that such a pre-deposit condition is a valid legislative requirement and that the appellate authority has no discretion to waive it. The petitioner's plea of financial hardship was examined on the facts placed before the Court, including the material relating to turnover and tax payments, but the Court found it unsafe to conclude that the petitioner was incapable of furnishing the requisite security. The authorities cited by the petitioner were held to be fact-specific and not sufficient to displace the statutory mandate on the record presented.

Conclusion: The request to bypass the statutory pre-deposit and security requirement was rejected. The writ petition failed, and the petitioner was left to avail remedies only in accordance with Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the relevant Rules.

Final Conclusion: The statutory pre-deposit regime under the VAT law was upheld on the facts, and no writ relief was granted to exempt the petitioner from compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes furnishing of tax payment and security a condition precedent for entertainment of an appeal, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to waive that condition absent a clear factual basis establishing inability to comply.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration dated 19.04.2024 for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months should be set aside and the registration restored subject to payment of outstanding statutory dues.

Analysis: The petitioner, a GST-registered assessee, failed to file returns for a continuous six-month period and a show cause notice was issued followed by an order of cancellation dated 19.04.2024. The petitioner was unable to file a statutory revocation application within the prescribed timeline and sought judicial relief. The Court noted that coordinate Benches have directed restoration of registration where petitioners pay outstanding statutory dues. Considering the interest of revenue in ensuring compliance and collection of statutory dues, the Court examined whether departmental authorities should be directed to re-consider revocation of cancellation and permit restoration upon full payment of dues. The Court observed no dispute from the revenue side regarding restoration upon payment of dues and relied on consistent orders in similar matters to reach a decision.

Conclusion: The impugned cancellation order dated 19.04.2024 is set aside. Respondent No.3 shall inform the petitioner of total outstanding statutory dues (if any) up to the date of cancellation; upon payment of such outstanding GST dues by the petitioner, the authority shall pass appropriate orders revoking the cancellation and restore the petitioner's GST registration. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail input tax credit (ITC) for invoices/debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21 notwithstanding the limitation in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 by virtue of the insertion of Section 16(5) (and related notifications/circulars) and whether the impugned orders reversing ITC and directing recovery must be quashed to that extent.

Analysis: The issue concerns interplay between Section 16(4) (which prescribes the deadline for availing ITC) and the subsequently inserted Section 16(5) which, with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, permits registered persons to take ITC in any return filed under section 39 up to 30.11.2021 for invoices/debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21. The legislative change received Presidential assent and was implemented by Finance Act (No.2) of 2024, followed by Notification No.17 of 2024-Central Tax and Circular No.237/31/2024-GST clarifying implementation. The impugned assessment orders reversed ITC solely on limitation grounds under Section 16(4). Given the retrospective operation of Section 16(5) and the administrative clarifications, the orders reversing ITC as time-barred are inconsistent with the amended statutory position and related administrative instructions; consequential measures tied to those orders (such as account freezes and recovery steps) affect the petitioners' rights and require remedy.

Conclusion: The impugned order is quashed insofar as it reverses or denies the petitioner's claim for ITC that is otherwise allowable within the period provided by Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Relief is granted in favour of the assessee on the limitation issue.

Final Conclusion: The decision gives effect to the retrospective amendment embodied in Section 16(5) for the specified financial years, restrains proceedings and recovery premised solely on the limitation under Section 16(4), and directs restoration of reliefs and procedural steps (including de-freezing of accounts and allowance for refund/adjustment) subject to other lawful challenges not based on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, as inserted with retrospective effect and supported by implementing notification and circular, permits registered persons to claim ITC in returns filed under section 39 up to 30.11.2021 for invoices/debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21, and administrative or adjudicatory orders reversing ITC solely on the ground of limitation under Section 16(4) must be quashed to that extent.

Issues: Whether interest for the period April 2020 to March 2021, not quantified in the show cause notice, could be included in the adjudication order under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Court examined Section 75(7) which provides that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice. The respondents relied on Section 75(9) which states that interest on short-paid tax shall be payable whether or not specified in the order determining tax liability. The Court distinguished Section 75(9) as addressing omission in the adjudication order itself, not omission in the earlier show cause notice. The record showed the show cause notice dated November 13, 2024 failed to quantify interest for 2020-21 while the adjudication order imposed interest for that period; this omission meant the demand exceeded the specification in the notice contrary to Section 75(7).

Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice and the adjudication order under Section 73(9) are quashed and set aside for contravening Section 75(7) of the Act, 2017; authorities are permitted to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order dated 28.10.2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without incorporating the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), is valid or is null and void.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined section 144C and allied provisions governing transfer pricing proceedings and the statutory timeline for completion of assessment including the role of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to give effect to DRP directions. The Tribunal considered coordinate and higher judicial decisions on whether non-incorporation of DRP directions in the final assessment where the TPO has not passed an order within the statutory time renders the assessment void, and whether subsequent rectification under section 154 or later TPO action can cure such non-conformity. The Tribunal noted that as on the date of decision the TPO had not passed any order giving effect to the DRP directions and that the statutory period for taking corrective action under section 144C had expired. The Tribunal distinguished authorities relied upon by the Revenue on facts where limitation had not expired and followed precedents holding that an assessing officer's final order not in conformity with mandatory DRP directions is without jurisdiction and void.

Conclusion: The final assessment order dated 28.10.2024 passed without incorporating the DRP directions is null and void. Grounds Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessing officer passes a final assessment order without incorporating binding DRP directions and the TPO has not given effect to those directions within the statutory time prescribed under section 144C, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and is null and void; subsequent rectification or later TPO action cannot validate the time-barred non-conforming assessment.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is to be computed considering only dividend-yielding (exempt income generating) investments or all investments; (ii) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D can be added while computing book profits under section 115JB; (iii) Whether a rectification under section 154 can be made after the assessee has settled the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) scheme and received Form-5; (iv) Whether ESOP expenses are admissible as deduction and whether the appellate authority can admit additional claims (medical reimbursement and LTA) not claimed in the return of income.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules must include only dividend-yielding investments when no exempt income was earned on investments.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined prior decisions in the assessee's own cases and applicable precedent and applied the principle that Rule 8D computation relates to investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal compared facts with earlier decisions where self-computation by the assessee excluding non-dividend investments was accepted.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee. The AO is directed to delete the additional disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D insofar as non-dividend yielding investments were included.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D can be added while computing book profits under section 115JB.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the Special Bench decision and the Jurisdictional High Court authority holding that computation under Explanation 1(f) to section 115JB(2) is not to be made by resort to section 14A/Rule 8D unless specifically provided in the Explanation; thus the section 14A disallowance is not to be restored into book profits computation.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee. The AO is directed to delete the section 14A/Rule 8D disallowance while computing book profits under section 115JB.

Issue (iii): Whether a rectification order under section 154 can be sustained after the assessee has settled the dispute under the DTVSV scheme and obtained Form-5.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Jurisdictional High Court precedent that once the assessee has filed the DTVSV declaration and obtained Form-5, the disputed liability stands settled and no income-tax authority may reopen or revise the assessment; therefore rectification orders issued thereafter are impermissible.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee. Rectification orders under section 154 issued after settlement under DTVSV Scheme are quashed.

Issue (iv): Whether ESOP expenses are allowable as deduction and whether the appellate authority may admit additional claims (medical reimbursement and LTA) not filed with the return.

Analysis: The Tribunal found ESOP admissibility to be covered by the Jurisdictional High Court and the assessee's prior appellate orders and saw no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s allowance. Regarding additional claims, the Tribunal held that the appellate authority has the power to admit additional claims not made in the original return.

Conclusion: In favour of the Assessee. ESOP expenses allowed and the CIT(A)'s admission of additional claims is sustained; Revenue's corresponding grounds are dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for assessment years 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for A.Y.2013-14; overall the decision vindicates the assessee on the principal contested issues concerning section 14A/Rule 8D, book profits under section 115JB, rectification post-DTVSV settlement, ESOP treatment and admission of additional claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Disallowance under section 14A and Rule 8D applies to investments that yield exempt income (such as dividend) and cannot be mechanically applied to non-dividend investments; moreover, section 14A/Rule 8D disallowance is not to be added in computation of book profits under section 115JB unless Explanation expressly requires it; and settlement under DTVSV Scheme with issuance of Form-5 bars subsequent reopening or rectification of the settled assessment.

Issues: Whether the respondent (a dealer/refilling unit) is entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment for the period prior to cancellation of its final eligibility certificate, notwithstanding a later finding that the unit was not a manufacturing unit.

Analysis: The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found, on facts not vitiated by the High Court's earlier ruling, that the respondent held a final eligibility certificate in force until its cancellation effective 24.11.2003 and, during that period, was prohibited from collecting sales tax from consumers. The High Court precedent and the STAT reasoning establish that where the State issued a clear promise by granting a final eligibility certificate and the dealer did not collect tax during the subsistence of that certificate, the liability to pay tax arises only from the date the cancellation becomes operative; further, tax may be recovered only if it is shown that the dealer collected tax during the incentive period.

Conclusion: The respondent is entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment for the period prior to 24.11.2003 and cannot be compelled to pay tax for that period except to the extent tax was actually collected; the petitioner's revision against the STAT orders is dismissed and the question of law is answered in favour of the respondent.

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the complainant's witness had no direct knowledge of the transaction and the authorisation to prosecute was not produced.

Analysis: A company may prosecute a complaint through an authorised representative, but such representative must have witnessed the transaction or possess direct knowledge of it. A witness who only speaks from company records and has no personal knowledge cannot prove the issuance or execution of the cheque. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise only after execution of the cheque is proved; until then, the initial burden remains on the complainant. On the evidence, there was no substantive proof of issuance or execution of the cheque, and the complainant failed to discharge the primary burden.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were unsustainable and were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove issuance and execution of the cheque through a competent witness with direct knowledge before the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate.

Issues: (i) Whether the final assessment orders passed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are barred by limitation.

Analysis: The legal framework involves the timelines prescribed under section 144C (including subsections 1, 4, 12 and 13) and the outer limitation periods under section 153 (including sections 153(2A) and 153(3)) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question requires determining whether the time taken in post-draft proceedings (including DRP proceedings and remand-related steps) must be reckoned in accordance with section 153 timelines or only with the standalone timelines prescribed under section 144C. Relevant precedents and interim directions from higher courts addressing the interaction between section 144C and section 153 were considered. For each assessment year, the due date for passing the final assessment order under section 144C(13) read with section 153 was compared with the actual date on which the final order was passed to ascertain whether the orders fell beyond the applicable limitation period.

Conclusion: The final assessment orders in the matters under consideration are barred by limitation and are quashed. The appeals are allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's challenge to the classification of the imported Ethernet switches and their eligibility for concessional basic customs duty raised any substantial question of law. (ii) Whether the CBIC Circular No. 08/2023-Customs applied to the imports in question or altered the eligibility for concessional duty.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's challenge to the classification of the imported Ethernet switches and their eligibility for concessional basic customs duty raised any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The disputed question turned on whether the imported switches were Carrier Ethernet Switches or Enterprise/Non-Carrier Ethernet Switches. The Tribunal had decided that issue on appreciation of the technical material, customer certifications, the OEM clarification, and the TEC report. The High Court accepted that the Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority and found no perversity or legal infirmity in those factual findings. The Court therefore held that the Revenue's objections merely sought to reopen a factual determination under the exemption notifications.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. No substantial question of law arose on the classification and duty entitlement issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the CBIC Circular No. 08/2023-Customs applied to the imports in question or altered the eligibility for concessional duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that the circular applied only to imports made with effect from 01.04.2023, whereas the imports in the present case were from November 2020 to February 2022. The Tribunal further found that, even on merits, the products did not fall within the exclusion categories covered by the circular. The High Court found no reason to interfere with that conclusion and held that the circular did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. The circular had no application to the imports in question and did not alter the duty benefit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the controversy was factual, the Tribunal's findings were not shown to be perverse, and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eligibility for exemption under a customs notification depends on factual classification of goods, and the Tribunal's conclusion rests on evidence without perversity, the issue does not raise a substantial question of law in appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether the transactions between the corporate debtor and the appellant amounting to Rs. 98,96,82,438/- are fraudulent within the meaning of Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and whether an order directing refund of that amount to the corporate debtor is justified.

Analysis: The matter involves determination under Section 66(1) (fraudulent trading) and Section 66(2) (wrongful trading) read with the Code and relevant regulations, including Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016. Evidence considered includes financial accounts seized by the Department of Revenue Intelligence showing receivables of approx. Rs. 98.97 crores, unaudited balance sheets filed by suspended directors that subsequently reverse those receivables, absence of corroborative purchase orders or physical inventory, deleted sales entries and unilateral journal adjustments in the corporate debtor's ledgers, and findings in related customs and regulatory proceedings indicating use of the corporate debtor as a front. The Resolution Professional lacked full cooperation from the erstwhile management and relied on material obtained from DRI and internal ledger entries to form a prima facie view of fraudulent preference. Precedents and authority cited distinguish avoidance applications under Chapter III from fraudulent/wrongful trading proceedings under Chapter VI and establish that Section 66(1) may be invoked against any person who was knowingly party to carrying on the business to defraud creditors. The available documentary record, ledger discrepancies, absence of inventory and inconsistent financial statements are treated on the scale of preponderance of probability to infer dishonest transactions and resultant benefit to the appellant, sustaining liability under Section 66(1).

Conclusion: Issue (i) is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the transactions totaling Rs. 98,96,82,438/- are held to be fraudulent under Section 66 of the Code and the direction to refund that amount to the corporate debtor is upheld.

Issues: (i) Whether freight charges forming part of the contract price under FOR/destination sales must be included in the transaction value for determination of excise duty when the place of removal is the buyer's premises.

Analysis: The question requires examination of the contractual terms as to place and point of sale, the time of transfer of property in the goods, and the applicable principles for determining 'place of removal' under valuation law. Relevant authorities and administrative guidance establish the general principle that 'place of removal' is to be determined with reference to the point of sale, subject to exceptions where the contract is FOR/destination sale and facts show that ownership and risk remained with the seller until delivery at buyer's premises. Where purchase orders specify delivery at buyer's premises, include freight in the contract price, require payment only after acceptance at destination, and impose transit risk/liability on the seller, those facts show the sale occurs at buyer's premises and freight up to that point forms part of the transaction value under Section 4. The Board's Circular dated 08.06.2018 and the cited Supreme Court decisions (Roofit; Ispat) and subsequent Tribunal precedents applying those principles are applicable fact-sensitive guides; where sale is on FOR terms and ownership/risk remains with the seller till delivery, freight collected or included in price must be added to assessable value and attract duty, interest under Section 11AA, and possible penalty under Section 11AC.

Conclusion: In respect of the decided issue (i), freight charges included in the contract price for FOR/destination sales where ownership and risk remain with the seller until delivery at buyer's premises are required to be included in the transaction value for determination of excise duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract is on FOR/destination terms and the contractual terms and conduct show transfer of property and risk to the buyer only upon delivery at the buyer's premises, freight charges up to delivery form part of the transaction value under Section 4 and must be included in the assessable value for excise duty.

Issues: Whether the appellate order dated 28th March, 2025 and the adjudication order dated 16th January, 2024 should be set aside for failure to consider the petitioners statutory return records (GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, GSTR-1) available on the GST portal and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Court examined the availability of figures and records on the GST portal (GSTR-3B, GSTR-9 and GSTR-1) which, according to the petitioner, demonstrated that the input tax credit requiring reversal had already been reversed and that the appellate authoritys order did not discuss or deal with those return figures. The Court noted that the appellate order extracts the petitioners grounds but does not address or analyse the portal data or the submissions relating thereto. The Court further observed that the adjudicating authority similarly did not consider the statutory return records while passing the adjudication order, resulting in an ex parte adjudication. Given that the material relied upon by the petitioner was available on the portal and that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Appellate Authority recorded reasons addressing that material, the Court found a failure to discharge the duty to consider relevant statutory records and to afford the petitioner an effective hearing.

Conclusion: The appellate order dated 28th March, 2025 and the adjudication order dated 16th January, 2024 are set aside for failure to consider the statutory return records and for not affording appropriate consideration and hearing; the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority/Proper Officer for fresh decision on merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering any written note or reply filed by the petitioner.