Issues: Whether the arrest and judicial custody of the petitioner for alleged GST evasion were illegal for non-compliance with the statutory conditions and safeguards governing arrest.

Analysis: The arrest-power must not be exercised routinely or mechanically; credible material, necessity for investigation, and risks of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses are material considerations under the departmental circular and the statutory scheme. The grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner recorded alleged facilitation of online-money-gaming transactions through fictitious entities, suppression of taxable value, routing and layering of funds, personal financial benefit, non-cooperation, and apprehended interference with the investigation. Those grounds also recorded reasons justifying custody and were found adequate. The governing principles applicable to offences under special enactments permit arrest for cognizable offences carrying a sentence below seven years where reasons and necessity for arrest are recorded.

Conclusion: The arrest was lawful and in conformity with the applicable statutory requirements and arrest guidelines; the petitioner's custody was not illegal.

Issues: Whether confiscated gold forming part of undeclared passenger baggage could be permitted to be re-exported by exercising the redemption power under Section 125 notwithstanding non-compliance with the declaration and detention requirements under Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 77 mandates a truthful declaration of baggage. Section 80 is a special provision governing detention and subsequent return or re-export of dutiable or prohibited passenger baggage, and makes that benefit conditional on a true declaration under Section 77. Section 125 confers a general and discretionary power to grant redemption of prohibited confiscated goods on payment of fine; it does not independently confer a right to re-export or override the special baggage regime. Reading Section 125 to permit re-export despite non-compliance with Section 80 would render the declaration condition under Section 77 and the safeguards under Section 80 ineffective. The petitioner neither declared the gold nor sought its detention before being intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. The revisional correction of the erroneous re-export direction consequently fell within the power under Section 129DD.

Conclusion: Re-export of confiscated undeclared passenger baggage cannot be granted under Section 125 where the conditions for re-export under Sections 77 and 80 are not satisfied; the finding is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the importer's letter relinquishing the SAFTA preferential-duty claim precluded a challenge to reassessment; (ii) Whether the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin entitled the imported goods to concessional duty; (iii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the importer's letter relinquishing the SAFTA preferential-duty claim precluded a challenge to reassessment.

Analysis: The relinquishment letter followed prolonged customs detention, mounting demurrage and the urgent need to clear goods required for manufacture. The contemporaneous replies and prompt appellate challenge established that the importer had consistently maintained its eligibility and had not voluntarily abandoned the preferential claim. A letter obtained under those circumstances did not amount to relinquishment contemplated by Section 28DA(4).

Conclusion: The relinquishment letter did not bar the importer from appealing the reassessment or pursuing the SAFTA benefit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin entitled the imported goods to concessional duty.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by a Certificate of Origin issued by Bangladesh's designated authority, certifying them as wholly produced or obtained there. Its authenticity was not disputed, it complied with the prescribed format and was produced within validity. The prescribed SAFTA verification procedure, including a retrospective check by the exporting State where doubt existed, was not followed. The Certificate therefore supported entitlement to preferential treatment.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to the SAFTA concessional rate under Notification No. 99/2011; the differential duty and interest arising from denial of that benefit were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Physical examination revealed no mismatch in quality, classification or valuation, and the goods were not seized. Since the preferential claim was valid and no misdeclaration or fraud was established, the basis for confiscation and the consequential monetary sanctions failed.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The importer retained its preferential-duty entitlement on the strength of the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin, and the reassessment and associated sanctions founded on denial of that entitlement could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A preferential-duty claim supported by an undisputed and valid Certificate of Origin cannot be denied without following the applicable origin-verification procedure, and an involuntary relinquishment obtained under coercive clearance circumstances does not extinguish the importer's right to challenge the assessment.

Issues: Whether service tax could be demanded on receipts reflected in Form 26AS where the underlying road-construction works were exempt and the Department had not independently established taxability.

Analysis: Road-construction works executed for the Public Works Department for general public utility fell within the exemption under Serial No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The demand was founded solely on third-party Form 26AS data, without enquiry into the nature of the receipts, available exemption, or the appellant's supporting records. The taxing authority bore the burden to establish taxable activity and could not presume that every receipt reported in Form 26AS represented taxable consideration.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable; the associated interest and penalties were consequently liable to be set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether sale of packaged information technology software was liable to service tax merely because the conditions of Notification No. 11/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 were not established; (ii) Whether late fee for delayed filing of service tax returns for three quarters was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether sale of packaged information technology software was liable to service tax merely because the conditions of Notification No. 11/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 were not established.

Analysis: Software recorded on media and marketed possesses the attributes of goods under Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India. A transaction involving its sale is a deemed sale and falls outside the definition of service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification conditions concerning valuation, duties and invoice declaration could not convert an otherwise sale-of-goods transaction into a taxable service.

Conclusion: The packaged software sale was not liable to service tax; the duty demand, consequential interest and penalty relating to that transaction were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether late fee for delayed filing of service tax returns for three quarters was sustainable.

Analysis: The returns for three quarters were not filed within the prescribed period after registration. The late fee was imposed under the applicable return-filing provisions.

Conclusion: The late fee of Rs.60,000 was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal liability on the software-sale component does not survive, while the statutory consequence for delayed return filing remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A marketed copy of information technology software on media, constituting goods and a deemed sale, is excluded from taxable service; non-fulfilment of an exemption notification's conditions does not alter that character.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand founded on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns; (ii) Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation; (iii) Whether penalty for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand founded on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns.

Analysis: The demand was based exclusively on statutory records available to the Revenue, without an independent investigation into the nature or taxability of the differential receipts. A mere variance between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax. The delayed filing of returns did not, in the absence of cogent evidence of conscious concealment, satisfy the jurisdictional conditions for invoking the extended period. Once that period was unavailable, the notice issued on 30.12.2020 was beyond the normal thirty-month limitation period, which had expired by 05.03.2020 even for the last relevant return. Pandemic-related limitation extensions could not revive an already time-barred demand.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the entire service-tax demand, interest under Section 75, and penalty under Section 78 were barred by limitation and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation.

Analysis: At the date of the notice, the applicable Board instructions required pre-show cause notice consultation for demands exceeding Rs.50 lakhs, except preventive or offence-related matters. The proceedings did not fall within an exception, and no consultation was afforded. The later circular dispensing with consultation in specified suppression-related cases could not retrospectively validate a notice issued contrary to the instructions then in force. Non-compliance with this mandatory procedural safeguard vitiated the initiation of proceedings.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and consequential proceedings were independently unsustainable for failure to undertake mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was sustainable.

Analysis: Timely filing of statutory returns is an independent procedural obligation. The delays in filing the ST-3 Returns were admitted and established on record. Although those delays did not prove suppression or intent to evade tax for limitation purposes, they constituted a default attracting the distinct penalty provision.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs.10,000 under Section 77 for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal demand and its tax-evasion consequences fail as time-barred and procedurally vitiated, while the separate penalty for delayed statutory compliance remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based solely on statutory return data and Form 26AS cannot attract the extended limitation period without affirmative evidence of fraud, wilful suppression, or intent to evade tax; mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation applicable when the notice was issued cannot be retrospectively dispensed with.

Issues: Whether grouping, pinning and plugging imported photocopier modules in a warehouse according to customer specifications amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Note 6 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Manufacture requires transformation resulting in a new and distinct marketable article having a distinctive name, character or use; labour, skill, value addition, or mere processing is insufficient where the commodity remains commercially the same. Note 6 applies only where an incomplete or unfinished article having the essential character of a finished article is converted into the complete article. The imported goods had been classified and assessed as complete machines and were cleared from the warehouse in sets and original packing. The evidence did not establish physical assembly at the warehouse: the alleged components were factory-fitted abroad, and the activity was confined to unpacking, grouping, pinning and plugging modules for customer-specific dispatch. Rule 2(a) is a classification rule and does not determine whether a subsequent process constitutes manufacture. The Revenue also failed to produce evidence displacing the Tribunal's factual findings.

Conclusion: The warehouse activity did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Note 6 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was inapplicable.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order could be sustained where, after cancellation of registration, the show-cause notice was served only through the common portal and the assessee consequently remained unaware of the proceedings.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled before issuance of the show-cause notice, which was uploaded solely through electronic mode more than three years later. The applicable departmental circular required physical service of notices where adjudication proceedings are initiated after cancellation of registration. Electronic portal service alone in those circumstances did not afford the assessee an effective opportunity to respond. A fresh opportunity was required to submit a reply, seek relied-upon documents or cross-examination, and participate in a personal hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order was unsustainable for want of effective service and adequate opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Challenge to prohibition orders sealing the petitioner's premises pending GST search proceedings.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by consent, without adjudicating the merits; the premises were directed to be de-sealed in the petitioner's presence and any search was to proceed in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure.

Outcome: Delay condoned and the Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

Issues: Whether the classification and duty consequences of imported sorbitol under the Advance Authorisation Scheme require fresh adjudication in light of the asserted fulfilment of export obligation and subsequently cited decisions.

Analysis: The appellant stated that sorbitol, imported for providing moisture to paste, was claimed under Chapter 2905, while certain import documents reflected Heading 382460 because of an admitted supplier error. The appellant relied on decisions said to establish that, where goods are imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme and the export obligation is fulfilled, the department cannot dispute the goods imported. The Revenue did not oppose reconsideration of the matter in light of those decisions. Fresh examination by the adjudicating authority was therefore considered necessary.

Conclusion: The classification and consequential duty dispute is remitted for fresh adjudication after considering the cited decisions and further submissions of the appellant.

Issues: Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised to challenge a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the alleged absence of a scheduled offence and alleged excess in the quantification of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides a time-bound adjudication of provisional attachment, followed by appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Writ jurisdiction despite that remedy is confined to exceptional cases of patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or manifest lack of jurisdiction. The provisional attachment order referred to FIRs alleging cheating, which is a scheduled offence, and the Enforcement Directorate had contemporaneously transmitted information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2). A pre-registered case concerning the scheduled offence is not indispensable for provisional attachment under Section 5. The objections concerning advertisements directed outside India and the amount treated as proceeds of crime concern quantification and disputed facts, appropriately examinable in the statutory proceedings.

Conclusion: No manifest lack of jurisdiction was established; the challenges to the attachment, including the predicate-offence and quantification objections, must be pursued through the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether the appellant's documents concerning road repair and maintenance services required reconsideration for determining entitlement to service-tax exemption.

Analysis: The certificates and documents produced related to repair and maintenance of roads and were material to the exemption claim. Since those documents went to the root of the matter, the exemption claim required fresh examination by the original authority. The issue of limitation was not examined.

Outcome: The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration on merits within three months.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demand of Service tax on royalty paid for mining rights; (ii) Whether Service tax was leviable on royalty paid after 01.04.2016 where the mining rights had been allotted before that date.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demand of Service tax on royalty paid for mining rights.

Analysis: The entire demand for April 2016 to June 2017 was raised through a notice dated 20.10.2021 beyond the normal limitation period. Taxability of royalty for assignment of natural-resource rights was a contentious interpretational issue marked by conflicting views. The mining lease, royalty payments and relevant transactions were disclosed in statutory records, and the demand was based on the assessee's records. A bona fide belief regarding non-taxability did not establish suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement or intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Service tax was leviable on royalty paid after 01.04.2016 where the mining rights had been allotted before that date.

Analysis: The right to use natural resources was allotted and agreed to be provided on 03.02.2015, when the relevant Government service remained within the negative list. Execution of the formal lease deed after 01.04.2016 only continued the concluded arrangement and did not alter the date on which the mining rights were assigned. The Point of Taxation Rules could not enlarge the charging provision or make taxable a service that was not taxable when provided or agreed to be provided.

Conclusion: No Service tax was leviable on royalty paid after 01.04.2016 pursuant to mining rights allotted before that date; the tax demand, consequential interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Royalty attributable to mining rights assigned before their exclusion from the negative list cannot be subjected to Service tax merely because payment was made subsequently, and the extended limitation period is unavailable absent suppression or intent to evade.

Ratio Decidendi: Taxability of assignment of natural-resource rights is determined when the right is provided or agreed to be provided; subsequent payment cannot attract Service tax where the assignment was then in the negative list, and a bona fide interpretational dispute does not justify extended limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit of service tax could be denied merely because it was availed on a proforma invoice; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the Cenvat credit.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit of service tax could be denied merely because it was availed on a proforma invoice.

Analysis: The service was admittedly rendered, the service provider had discharged the service-tax liability, and the proforma invoice contained the material particulars, including service-tax registration details, assessable value and tax amount. Subsequent regular invoices covering the same service and tax were also issued. Rule 9 requires material statutory particulars for credit, and credit cannot be denied where the underlying service, tax payment and requisite particulars are undisputed merely because the document is styled as a proforma invoice.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible on the proforma invoice. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The credit had been disclosed in the ER-1 return for March 2011, and the audit report of December 2012 had already quantified the disputed credit and recorded the tax payments and subsequent invoices. No material established suppression, nor was further investigation shown before issuance of the show-cause notice more than three years later. Disclosure in returns and departmental knowledge precluded invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation, and the extended period was not invocable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit remains available and the proposed recovery cannot be sustained on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxable service, payment of tax and material prescribed particulars are established, Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely because the supporting document is a proforma invoice; the extended limitation period requires evidence of suppression despite disclosure and departmental knowledge.

Issues: Whether compression of natural gas into cascades solely to transport it to customers, followed by decompression and sale as natural gas, constitutes manufacture of compressed natural gas liable to central excise duty; and whether penalties on the company and its Chairman-CEO consequently survive.

Issue (i): Whether compression of natural gas into cascades solely to transport it to customers, followed by decompression and sale as natural gas, constitutes manufacture of compressed natural gas liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: Note 5 to Chapter 27 deems compression of natural gas to be manufacture only where it is undertaken for marketing the gas as CNG. The established factual position was that compression was used solely to facilitate transportation in cascades; at the customers' premises the gas was decompressed through pressure-reducing skids and sold as natural gas at normal pressure. The Tribunal's earlier decision on identical facts and the analogous decision concerning compression of coal-bed methane for transport were applicable.

Conclusion: Compression solely for transportation, where the product is marketed and sold as natural gas rather than CNG, does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Note 5 to Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The excise-duty demand, interest and company penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed on the Chairman-CEO survive after the excise-duty demand against the company is set aside on merits.

Analysis: The personal penalties were consequential to the demand against the company, which was unsustainable on merits.

Conclusion: The penalties on the Chairman-CEO do not survive and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The compression and transport arrangement did not create an excisable manufacture of CNG, and no consequential personal penal liability remained.

Ratio Decidendi: Compression of natural gas constitutes deemed manufacture only when undertaken for marketing the gas as CNG; compression exclusively to enable transportation, followed by sale after decompression as natural gas, is not manufacture.

Issues: (i) Whether umbrella panel fabric cut into triangular shape and size is classifiable as made-up textile articles under Heading 6307 or as woven synthetic filament fabric under Heading 5407; (ii) Whether the extended period under Section 28(4) could sustain the differential-duty demand.

Issue (i): Whether umbrella panel fabric cut into triangular shape and size is classifiable as made-up textile articles under Heading 6307 or as woven synthetic filament fabric under Heading 5407.

Analysis: Section Note 7 of Section XI treats articles cut otherwise than into squares or rectangles as "made-up". The imported triangular panels had acquired the essential character and commercial identity of umbrella panels rather than textile fabric. Heading 6307 specifically covers made-up textile articles, whereas Heading 5407 is a general heading for woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn; the specific heading prevails.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Heading 6307 as made-up textile articles and not under Heading 5407. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period under Section 28(4) could sustain the differential-duty demand.

Analysis: The goods' description and classification were fully declared in the Bills of Entry and the assessments were completed without objection. No suppression or misdeclaration was established; consequently, a classification dispute could not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The entire demand was barred by limitation. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reclassification, differential customs duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained either on classification or limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Textile fabric cut into non-rectangular panels that acquires the essential character and commercial identity of a finished made-up article is classifiable under the specific heading for made-up textile articles; an extended limitation period requires established suppression or misdeclaration and cannot rest on an openly declared classification dispute.

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed on a customs broker's G-card holder under Section 112A for alleged involvement in the importation of restricted goods concealed in a consignment.

Analysis: The appellant had returned the import documents without clearing the goods after a mismatch between the declared description and the cargo was noticed, and had intimated Customs of the return. The cash credited to the appellant's account was explained as being used for customs duty, transportation and logistical expenses. The record did not establish that the appellant knew of, abetted, did, or omitted any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112A was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issues: Whether weld mesh manufactured exclusively as top, bottom, side, door and partition components of poultry battery cages is classifiable as parts of poultry-keeping machinery under CETH 84369100 or as iron and steel structures under CETH 73089090.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured from galvanised iron wire to specified designs and were exclusively used as identifiable components of poultry battery cages. The proposed entry for iron and steel structures covers structural articles of the nature specified therein, whereas the Revenue did not provide convincing material or reasoning showing how the specialised weld-mesh cage components fell within that entry. Reliance on an earlier decision concerning poultry equipment was misplaced, since the subsequent appellate proceedings accepted classification under CETH 84369100.

Conclusion: The declared classification under CETH 84369100 is correct; rejection of that classification and proposed classification under CETH 73089090 are unsustainable.