Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 for transportation without an e-way bill is leviable where the movement is a stock transfer between premises of the same registered person.

Analysis: The movement under a delivery challan was between premises bearing the same GSTIN, involved no distinct counterparty and lacked consideration. It consequently did not constitute a supply under the statutory definition and could not be an intra-State taxable supply attracting the charging provision. Since no tax was payable on the goods, the tax-linked penalty formula under Section 129 could not be invoked. Although the e-way bill requirement applies to movement for reasons other than supply, its breach did not justify recourse to Section 129 in the circumstances; the applicable consequence for such a document-related contravention lay under the specific penal provision. The record also contained no allegation or material establishing fraud, suppression, or non-genuineness beyond the absence of an e-way bill.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 129 is not leviable for transport of goods without an e-way bill where the transport is a stock transfer between premises of the same registered person.

Issues: Whether a penalty order issued 47 days after service of the detention notice is barred by the mandatory seven-day period under Section 129(3).

Analysis: The statutory use of "shall" in Section 129(3), governing coercive detention and penalty proceedings, makes the seven-day period for passing the penalty order mandatory. Strict construction of fiscal statutes and the purpose of preventing prolonged detention require adherence to that limitation. The dates of the notice and penalty order were undisputed and already on record; therefore, reliance on the limitation issue at the Tribunal stage was permissible. The supplies were covered by e-invoices, the tax was reported and paid, and the absence of an e-way bill did not establish mens rea to evade tax.

Conclusion: The penalty order issued beyond seven days of service of the notice was time-barred, illegal and without jurisdiction; the consequential appellate order could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether loss incurred by an undertaking eligible for deduction under Section 10B can be set off against taxable profits of other undertakings.

Analysis: Section 10B requires a separate computation of export profits for determining the deduction available to each eligible undertaking. That computation is confined to the deduction and does not alter the treatment of the undertaking's profit or loss while computing the assessee's combined income. The provisions governing aggregation, set-off and carry forward of losses continue to apply, and a loss of an eligible undertaking is subject to inter-source and inter-head set-off and, where applicable, carry forward.

Conclusion: Loss of a Section 10B-eligible undertaking can be set off against taxable profits of other undertakings and may be carried forward in accordance with law; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the application for provisional release of seized goods and the connected vehicle should be decided under the statutory mechanism pending customs adjudication.

Analysis: Section 110A provides for provisional release of goods seized under Section 110 pending adjudication, upon bond, security and such conditions as may be required. The investigation stood completed and a show-cause notice had been issued, while the application for provisional release remained pending before the competent Adjudicating Authority. Disputed matters concerning the invoice and valuation fall within that authority's adjudicatory domain and require a reasoned determination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The competent Adjudicating Authority must expeditiously decide the application for provisional release of the seized goods and vehicle under Section 110A, determine valuation in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order.

Issues: (i) Whether concessional customs-duty exemption could be denied on the basis that the Country of Origin Certificates submitted for Malaysian imports were unauthentic; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced for alleged undervaluation; (iii) Whether penalties were sustainable for alleged misdeclaration of origin and undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether concessional customs-duty exemption could be denied on the basis that the Country of Origin Certificates submitted for Malaysian imports were unauthentic.

Analysis: Of the 38 Certificates of Origin furnished by the assessee, only one appeared in the Malaysian authority's list of unauthenticated certificates, and duty on that import had already been paid without the exemption. The remaining 37 certificates had not been cancelled or revoked and were accepted after verification by Customs at the time of import. A subsequent communication, without particulars of contravention or evidence of the assessee's collusion, could not invalidate certificates that were valid when the goods were cleared.

Conclusion: The 37 Certificates of Origin were authentic and acceptable, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 for the corresponding consignments.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced for alleged undervaluation.

Analysis: The enhanced value was based on contemporary imports without adherence to the valuation requirements. There was no evidence that the assessee paid any amount over and above the invoice value, and no documentary material justified rejection of the declared transaction value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was acceptable; the enhanced value determined by Revenue was unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties were sustainable for alleged misdeclaration of origin and undervaluation.

Analysis: Since the allegations concerning invalid origin certificates and undervaluation were not established, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was also not proved.

Conclusion: No penalty was imposable on the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The customs exemption for the eligible Malaysian consignments, the declared import values, and the assessee's position against penal liability were sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the town seizure of unmarked gold was founded on reasonable belief so as to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the respondents established licit domestic procurement; (ii) Whether the investigation statements could sustain confiscation and penalties in the absence of compliance with statutory safeguards and independent corroboration; (iii) Whether the seized currency was liable to confiscation as alleged sale proceeds of smuggled gold.

Issue (i): Whether the town seizure of unmarked gold was founded on reasonable belief so as to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the respondents established licit domestic procurement.

Analysis: Invocation of the reverse burden under Section 123 requires the foundational fact that the goods were seized on reasonable belief that they were smuggled. The gold was seized in a town area, bore no foreign markings, inscriptions, serial numbers or other intrinsic indicia of foreign origin, and its purity did not establish foreign origin. Quantity and possession without documents at the time of interception were insufficient, without objective contemporaneous material, to establish reasonable belief.

Analysis: GST-compliant purchase invoices, stock registers, GST returns, tax-payment records and closing-stock particulars supported domestic procurement and accounting of the gold. The Revenue produced no forensic, expert or other independent evidence establishing that these records were fabricated, fictitious or unrelated to the seized gold, and did not establish any link with illegal importation.

Conclusion: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was inapplicable; the Revenue failed to prove that the gold was smuggled. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigation statements could sustain confiscation and penalties in the absence of compliance with statutory safeguards and independent corroboration.

Analysis: Statements recorded under Section 108 were disputed as typed statements obtained from illiterate persons without meaningful verification. Their use as substantive evidence required compliance with the safeguards under Section 138B, including examination of the statement-makers and an effective opportunity for cross-examination. No such compliance or independent corroboration through documentary, scientific, financial-trail or other objective evidence was established.

Conclusion: The untested and uncorroborated statements could not establish smuggling or displace the respondents' documentary evidence; confiscation of gold and penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA were unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the seized currency was liable to confiscation as alleged sale proceeds of smuggled gold.

Analysis: Confiscation of the currency rested on the presumption that it represented proceeds of smuggled gold. No cogent evidence established a nexus between the currency and any smuggling activity, while the foundational allegation of smuggling itself was not proved.

Conclusion: The currency was not liable to confiscation and was directed to be released with applicable interest. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order removing confiscation and penal consequences was sustained, and the respondents' gold and currency were entitled to restoration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The reverse burden for notified goods arises only upon objectively established reasonable belief of smuggling; unmarked town-seized gold, supported by unrebutted domestic commercial records, and uncorroborated statements not tested under statutory safeguards cannot sustain confiscation or penalties.

Issues: Whether an interim direction permitting use of frozen funds allegedly constituting proceeds of crime to discharge salary and statutory liabilities of another company was sustainable.

Analysis: The frozen funds were alleged to be proceeds of crime held by the respondent, whereas the payments permitted under the interim arrangement related to liabilities of another company identified as the primary accused. The respondent's asserted loan arrangement did not warrant permitting payment of liabilities that were not its own from such frozen funds.

Conclusion: The interim direction permitting release of the frozen funds for payment of another company's liabilities was set aside.

Issues: Whether interest is payable at 12% per annum on refund of an amount paid by mistake of fact, and the period for which such interest is payable.

Analysis: An amount paid by mistake of fact is a deposit rather than tax. The earlier appellate order had accepted that the payment was made by mistake and that the limitation framework under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not govern its refund. The decisions applied establish that, in the absence of a statutory rate governing interest on refund of such deposits, interest at 12% is payable. The refund having arisen from a mistaken deposit, the subsequent payment of refund does not extinguish entitlement to interest from the date of deposit.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit until payment of the refund.

Issues: (i) Whether manpower supplied for sweeping and cleaning to Noida Authority qualified for exemption as sanitation conservancy services provided to a Governmental Authority; (ii) Whether the balance amount qualified for small service provider exemption; (iii) Whether the service-tax demand for April 2015 to March 2017 could be raised by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether manpower supplied for sweeping and cleaning to Noida Authority qualified for exemption as sanitation conservancy services provided to a Governmental Authority.

Analysis: The work order established that sweepers were supplied for cleaning purposes, bringing the activity within sanitation conservancy under Entry 25. Noida Authority, being constituted under a State enactment and performing municipal functions, satisfied the definition of Governmental Authority in the notification.

Conclusion: The services were exempt as sanitation conservancy services provided to a Governmental Authority, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the balance amount qualified for small service provider exemption.

Analysis: The remaining taxable amount was assessed under the small service provider exemption notification.

Conclusion: The balance amount was eligible for small service provider exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the service-tax demand for April 2015 to March 2017 could be raised by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had regularly filed ST-3 returns and acted under a bona fide belief that its services were exempt. These circumstances did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was unavailable; the demand and consequential penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claims were sustained, and the service-tax demand and penalties did not survive.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit reversed under protest pursuant to a show-cause notice is refundable where the demand is set aside as barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand had been annulled on the ground that the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and that determination had attained finality. The amount reversed under protest consequently represented CENVAT credit not payable by the assessee. The precedent denying refund of voluntarily paid duty against a time-barred but legally due demand was inapplicable because the demand in the present matter stood set aside and the assessee had no liability to pay it.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of the CENVAT credit reversed under protest; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: Whether the challenge to a communication seeking commercial justification and supporting documents during an ongoing tender evaluation was premature.

Analysis: The communication neither rejected nor disqualified any bidder, nor did it determine the petitioners' rights. It sought material to assess the commercial sustainability of quoted discounts and avoid disruption of medicine supplies. The petitioners had already furnished their responses and supporting documents. Since no final decision on the bids had been made, the tendering authority was required to evaluate the material and issue a reasoned decision.

Conclusion: The challenge was premature; the tendering authority must decide the bids after considering the responses and documents, with aggrieved bidders left free to pursue remedies available in law.

Issues: (i) Whether a corporate guarantee furnished without consideration by a holding company for its subsidiary is a taxable supply of services under the GST framework; (ii) Whether Rule 28(2) prescribing valuation of corporate guarantees and Section 15(4) are valid; (iii) Whether Rule 28(2) can apply to guarantees executed before 26.10.2023; (iv) Whether the impugned circulars are valid; (v) Whether proceedings under Section 74 for corporate-guarantee transactions were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a corporate guarantee furnished without consideration by a holding company for its subsidiary is a taxable supply of services under the GST framework.

Analysis: A corporate guarantee comprises interlocking arrangements between the creditor, principal debtor and surety. The statutory rights of indemnity and subrogation establish that the subsidiary receives the economic benefit of the guarantee and is its recipient. A holding company and its subsidiary are related persons, and a guarantee enabling the subsidiary to obtain finance is incidental or ancillary to business notwithstanding that furnishing guarantees is not the holding company's main business or that it is without pecuniary benefit. Such arrangement is consequently covered by Entry 2 of Schedule I.

Analysis: The guarantee is also an obligation undertaken by the holding company for the subsidiary's benefit and is classifiable as an agreement to do an act under Entry 5(e) of Schedule II. It is not an actionable claim: the guarantor has only a contingent and secondary liability on the principal debtor's default, rather than a direct claim to an unsecured debt or beneficial interest capable of assignment. A pledge accompanying a guarantee does not alter the taxable character of the guarantee where the substance of the documents shows an undertaking to secure and discharge the subsidiary's obligation.

Conclusion: A corporate guarantee furnished by a holding company for its subsidiary, including one without consideration, is a taxable supply of services between related persons, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 28(2) prescribing valuation of corporate guarantees and Section 15(4) are valid.

Analysis: Section 15 permits specialised valuation mechanisms for supplies whose value cannot be determined by ordinary transaction value, and the rule-making power under Section 164 supports such a mechanism upon the GST Council's recommendation. Accordingly, Rule 28(2) and Section 15(4) are not ultra vires merely because Rule 28(2) prescribes a deemed valuation for corporate guarantees.

Analysis: However, a mandatory valuation at 1% where the actual commission or charge is ascertainable and lower is arbitrary. The statutory valuation framework permits a deemed figure where actual value is unavailable, but cannot compel a higher fictional value despite known actual consideration. The expression "whichever is higher" denies the guarantor the option to adopt actual consideration and is disproportionate.

Conclusion: Section 15(4) and Rule 28(2) are valid, but the words "whichever is higher" in Rule 28(2) are read down; valuation may be based on actual commission or charge where ascertainable, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether Rule 28(2) can apply to guarantees executed before 26.10.2023.

Analysis: Rule 28(2), introduced from 26.10.2023, cannot impose a new valuation-based tax burden on corporate guarantees executed before its introduction. Such application would be retroactive and unduly harsh, impairing settled financial arrangements without a pre-existing valuation machinery. A continuing guarantee may nevertheless attract levy from 26.10.2023 onward.

Conclusion: GST under Rule 28(2) cannot be levied for the period before 26.10.2023, though levy may apply prospectively from that date to continuing guarantees, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned circulars are valid.

Analysis: Administrative circulars may operationalise and clarify the statutory framework but cannot independently create a levy or survive insofar as they conflict with the governing statutory interpretation. Since Rule 28(2) was read down and denied pre-26.10.2023 application, the contrary portions of the circulars cannot operate. The circular concerning guarantees for foreign recipients also excluded the specified foreign-subsidiary transaction from Rule 28(2).

Conclusion: The circulars are set aside to the extent inconsistent with the ruling, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (v): Whether proceedings under Section 74 for corporate-guarantee transactions were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A bona fide dispute over the taxability and valuation of corporate guarantees, particularly where the guarantees pre-dated Rule 28(2), does not establish deliberate withholding or intent to evade. Mere non-declaration amid an unsettled statutory interpretation is insufficient.

Conclusion: The orders and show-cause notices invoking Section 74 are unsustainable and are quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The ruling preserves GST taxability of corporate guarantees prospectively while restricting valuation to a constitutionally permissible measure, excluding pre-rule transactions, and removing coercive proceedings founded on alleged suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate guarantee by a holding company for its subsidiary is a related-party supply of service under the GST law, but a delegated valuation rule cannot mandate a fictional value higher than ascertainable actual consideration, nor may it impose a new fiscal burden on transactions preceding its introduction.

Issues: Whether revocation of the Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were sustainable for undertaking clearance activities through another Customs Broker's credentials without the requisite authorisation and in breach of Customs Broker obligations.

Analysis: The Appellant admittedly undertook clearance-related work, received the import documents, and deputed its G-Card holder for examination, although the Bill of Entry bore another Customs Broker's credentials. Consent or a mutual arrangement with that broker could not authorise the Appellant to transact without an importer authorisation in its own name. The goods were prohibited for import under the applicable plant-quarantine regime; accordingly, the Appellant was required to exercise diligence, advise the importer of applicable restrictions, report non-compliance to Customs, and maintain and produce relevant business records. The established conduct supported violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(k) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. Relief granted to the other broker in separate proceedings did not eliminate the Appellant's independent statutory breaches. Given the conscious use of another broker's credentials in a transaction involving prohibited goods, the sanctions were not manifestly disproportionate, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The revocation of the licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were sustained against the assessee.

Issues: Whether a one-day delay reflected in the payment record could deny the assessee the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme and issuance of a discharge certificate.

Analysis: The scheme benefit was sought after payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3. Although the departmental record reflected the CIN date as one day later than the claimed payment date, such minor procedural delay could not defeat the benefit of the scheme. The applicable approach also permitted manual examination and processing of declarations for issuance of the discharge certificate.

Conclusion: The assessee cannot be denied the scheme benefit because of the one-day delay; the request for issuance of the discharge certificate must be examined and processed manually within four weeks.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended limitation period was invocable for the service-tax demand; (ii) Whether the appellant's pantry-car activity was taxable as outdoor catering service.

Analysis: The Members reached opposite conclusions. The Technical Member treated the appellant's licensed on-board operations as catering performed for IRCTC, found that the operational obligations went beyond a mere sale of pre-packed food, and considered the non-payment and non-disclosure sufficient to establish suppression. The Judicial Member found that the appellant had disclosed its activity and tax position during departmental enquiry, that the Revenue had not established deliberate suppression with intent to evade, and that the contractual basis, service recipient and consideration for the alleged taxable service had not been sufficiently established.

Outcome: The Members recorded a difference of opinion and referred the matter to the President for determination by a Third Member.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen used for manufacture, repair and maintenance of capital goods and machinery within the factory; (ii) Whether the demand raised by show-cause notice for credit availed during August 2008 to April 2009 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen used for manufacture, repair and maintenance of capital goods and machinery within the factory.

Analysis: The Chartered Engineer's certificates established that the disputed goods were used within the factory for manufacture of capital goods and machinery, rather than for construction of factory sheds, buildings, foundations or support structures. The applicable principles recognise credit for inputs used in manufacture of capital goods deployed in the manufacturer's factory; the exclusion concerning structural items used for construction or foundations did not apply to the established end-use. The earlier Larger Bench view denying such credit stood displaced by subsequent authority.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the disputed structural materials, welding electrodes and oxygen was admissible. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised by show-cause notice for credit availed during August 2008 to April 2009 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The credit had been recorded in statutory RG23A records and disclosed in ER-1 returns. Given the divergent judicial views prevailing on admissibility of credit on the disputed goods, the assessee's belief in eligibility was bona fide. There was no suppression warranting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed demand, and consequential interest and penalty, could not survive either on merits or on limitation; consequential relief follows in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inputs demonstrably used in manufacture of capital goods within the factory qualify for Cenvat credit unless used for excluded construction or foundation purposes; disclosure of such credit in statutory records, coupled with a bona fide view amid interpretational dispute, negates suppression for invoking extended limitation.

Issues: Whether the appellant's request for issuance of a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, upon payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3, required manual processing.

Analysis: The records, including Forms SVLDRS-1 and SVLDRS-3 and the bank statement, established that the differential duty determined under the Scheme had been remitted, which was undisputed. The matter was procedural, and manual examination and processing of the declaration was warranted for issuance of the discharge certificate.

Conclusion: The appellant's request for a discharge certificate is to be manually examined and processed by the Commissioner within four weeks.

Issues: Whether recovery of the balance tax demand and attachment of the assessee's bank account should continue pending disposal of the statutory appeal.

Analysis: A prima facie case for interim protection was found because amounts exceeding the required pre-deposit had already been recovered or deposited. The merits of the demand, including the question of non-availment of input tax credit, were left for determination by the Appellate Authority.

Outcome: Further coercive recovery was restrained pending the appellate decision, the bank-account attachment was lifted subject to monitoring of adequate balance, and the statutory appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously.