Issues: Whether keyboards imported through courier for personal use, carrying a free rate of customs duty under Customs Tariff Heading 8471 60 40, are classifiable as dutiable personal imports under Heading 9804 and liable to customs duty and IGST at 28%.

Analysis: Chapter 98 applies notwithstanding a more specific tariff entry only where its prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Heading 9804 covers all dutiable goods imported for personal use, whereas the specific entry for keyboards under Heading 8471 carries a free rate of duty. Goods on which no duty is leviable by reason of the tariff rate are not dutiable goods. The Schedule IV IGST entry for Heading 9804 likewise covers only dutiable articles intended for personal use. The principle that goods bearing a free tariff rate cannot be brought under a Chapter 98 heading restricted to dutiable articles applies equally to the keyboard imported for personal use.

Conclusion: The keyboard is classifiable under Heading 8471 60 40 and cannot be classified under Heading 9804; no customs duty or IGST under the Heading 9804 entry is payable.

Issues: Whether an assessee opting for the Works Contract Composition Scheme is entitled to retain the composition rate prevailing when it exercised the option throughout the contract, notwithstanding a subsequent revision of the rate.

Analysis: Rule 3 makes the option to follow the composition procedure irrevocable for the entire works contract, but does not freeze the applicable tax rate as on the date of exercising that option. Before the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, the rate was governed by the taxable event, namely rendition of service. After those Rules came into force, the applicable rate is determined at the point of taxation, including under Rule 4 where there is a change in the effective rate of tax. The earlier Calcutta High Court decision had not considered the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011.

Conclusion: The composition option continues for the entire works contract, but the service-tax rate is the rate prevailing at the point of taxation and is not permanently fixed at the rate existing when the option was exercised; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty paid owing to inclusion of pre-declared cash and turnover discounts in the transaction value could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The discount schemes were disclosed to dealers before clearance, although their precise quantum was determinable only after completion of the relevant discount period. Cum-duty credit notes were issued to the dealers to pass on the agreed discounts. The Tribunal's earlier decision in respect of the same assessee had recognized entitlement to provisional assessment under Rule 7 and, consequently, to refund of excess duty attributable to such pre-known discounts. The Chartered Accountant's and dealers' certificates established that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the dealers or buyers and was borne by the assessee.

Conclusion: The refund claims are not barred by unjust enrichment, and the assessee is entitled to refund of the claimed excess excise duty.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit on inputs procured before the amendment to Rule 12 from units availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-C.E. was admissible.

Analysis: The CENVAT Credit Rules were required to be read harmoniously. Credit is available where duty has been suffered on inputs, the inputs are used in manufacture of final products, and they are received under prescribed invoices or documents. As these conditions were undisputed and the pre-amendment Rules contained no express prohibition against such credit, a subsequent express provision could not be read as restricting credit only from its effective date.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the disputed inputs was admissible even before the amendment to Rule 12; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the exporter was entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit where goods were delivered under the bill-to ship-to model despite toll-movement discrepancies and cancellation of registrations of indirect suppliers; (ii) Whether Revenue could raise fresh allegations and rely on additional material before the Tribunal that were not part of the show cause notices or prior proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the exporter was entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit where goods were delivered under the bill-to ship-to model despite toll-movement discrepancies and cancellation of registrations of indirect suppliers.

Analysis: Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires fulfilment of the stipulated conditions for input tax credit. Tax payment, export of goods, and the direct supplier's continuing registration were undisputed. E-way bills issued under the bill-to ship-to model, transport documents, shipping bills, export general manifest details, transporter certification, and banking records substantiated delivery at the export location and subsequent export. The GST law does not require goods to commence movement from the registered premises of the supplier, nor does it prescribe toll-plaza receipts as a mandatory condition for credit. Cancellation of registration of suppliers beyond the direct supplier did not establish any irregularity attributable to the exporter.

Conclusion: Refund of accumulated input tax credit was admissible to the assessee; toll data and alleged irregularities of indirect suppliers did not justify denial.

Issue (ii): Whether Revenue could raise fresh allegations and rely on additional material before the Tribunal that were not part of the show cause notices or prior proceedings.

Analysis: The show cause notices were confined to the alleged transport-route discrepancy and cancellation of registrations of indirect suppliers. The further allegations concerning licensing, investigations, and other concerns were introduced for the first time at the appellate stage, without a request for admission of additional evidence or supporting investigation material. Rule 45(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 and Rule 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 bar production of additional evidence before the Tribunal except in exceptional circumstances, which were not established.

Conclusion: The fresh grounds and unsupported additional material could not be considered; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's documented export transactions and corresponding input tax credit entitlement remain unaffected by non-statutory toll-data objections, indirect-supplier irregularities, or fresh appellate-stage allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions for input tax credit are fulfilled through undisputed transactional and export documents, credit cannot be denied merely on toll-movement discrepancies or alleged defaults of suppliers beyond the recipient's direct supplier; fresh allegations and evidence outside the show cause notice cannot be introduced in appeal without satisfying the prescribed exceptional grounds.

Issues: (i) Whether an importer using forged or manipulated transferable duty-credit scrips through an authorised customs-clearance agent can claim protection as a bona fide purchaser; (ii) Whether non-production of original scrips and allied documents, and denial of cross-examination of Customs officers, vitiate the proceedings for breach of natural justice; (iii) Whether penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 are sustainable where the importer claims lack of actual knowledge of the manipulation.

Issue (i): Whether an importer using forged or manipulated transferable duty-credit scrips through an authorised customs-clearance agent can claim protection as a bona fide purchaser.

Analysis: An authorised agent's acts within the scope of authority are attributable to the importer under Sections 182, 186 and 226 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer authorised the agent to undertake customs clearance and utilise scrips, obtained the resulting duty benefit, and could not disclaim the consequences of that agency.

Analysis: The equitable principle underlying Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires good faith and reasonable care. The excess value reflected in manipulated EDI records was never part of the entitlement issued by the DGFT and could not be transferred under the principle of nemo dat quod non habet. The importer neither verified the scrips, their source, validity or available balance, nor questioned material irregularities in the clearance arrangements. Caveat emptor required such due diligence.

Conclusion: The importer cannot claim bona fide purchaser protection or avoid liability for duty benefits derived from manipulated scrips. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether non-production of original scrips and allied documents, and denial of cross-examination of Customs officers, vitiate the proceedings for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The evidentiary basis comprised DGFT entitlement data, customs registration records, EDI transaction trails, electronic records and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, an adverse inference from non-production is discretionary and does not arise where the relevant facts are independently established.

Analysis: The importer had never possessed or independently verified the disputed original scrips and did not establish any actual prejudice from their absence. The denial of cross-examination likewise did not invalidate the proceedings because no material fact or resulting prejudice was identified.

Conclusion: The proceedings are not vitiated by non-production of original documents or denial of cross-examination. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 are sustainable where the importer claims lack of actual knowledge of the manipulation.

Analysis: Section 114A applies where duty is short-levied through fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression intended to evade duty. The importer filed Bills of Entry relying on scrips without verifying their existence, validity or credit balance, and directly benefited from the manipulated credits. Personal execution of the electronic manipulation was not necessary for the statutory penalty.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 114A excludes a separate penalty under Section 112 where penalty is imposed under Section 114A.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A is sustained, while the separate penalty under Section 112 is set aside. This issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The findings apply equally to the connected writ matters arising from the same investigation, and the customs-duty consequences founded on the manipulated duty-credit scrips remain enforceable subject to removal of the separate Section 112 penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer that authorises an agent to use transferable duty-credit scrips and obtains the resulting benefit remains responsible for manipulated or excess credits where it failed to exercise reasonable diligence; absence of original instruments does not invalidate proceedings supported by independent reliable evidence and absent demonstrable prejudice.

Issues: Whether service tax paid on a contractual advance, where no service was rendered and the entire advance was recovered upon termination of the contract, was refundable without the limitation under Section 11B.

Analysis: The contractual advance was received against a project that was terminated before commencement, and no service was provided or consideration adjusted against contractual performance. The entire advance was recovered through encashment of the bank guarantee, while the incidence of the tax payment remained with the assessee. A payment made where no taxable service was rendered does not retain the character of service tax legally payable; it is a deposit with the Revenue. Consequently, the refund limitation applicable to duty under Section 11B did not govern the claim. In any event, the entitlement to refund arose upon termination of the contract and recovery of the advance.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B, and the assessee was entitled to refund with consequential relief.

Issues: Whether production-of-goods services undertaken on job work and exempted under Notification No. 8/2005-S.T., where the processed goods are returned to the client for manufacture of duty-paid final products, are exempted services attracting reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The job-work exemption applies where goods produced from materials supplied by the client are returned for use in manufacture of final products on which appropriate excise duty is payable. The client's final products were admittedly cleared on payment of duty. CENVAT credit eligibility for inputs and input services used in such job work is preserved under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; consequently, the restriction applicable to exempted services under Rule 6 is inapplicable.

Conclusion: The job-work services were not to be treated as exempted services for the purpose of Rule 6, and the CENVAT credit was admissible.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 after expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) preserves the limitation applicable under the pre-amendment regime for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021. For Assessment Year 2015-16, the outer six-year period expired on 31 March 2022. The extended limitation under the amended regime could not operate retrospectively to revive a notice that was already time-barred, and the exclusion provisions relating to proceedings under Section 148A did not extend the restriction imposed by the first proviso.

Conclusion: The notice issued under Section 148 on 7 April 2022 was barred by limitation; the consequential reassessment order was vitiated and quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether entitlement to refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted-duty structure can be determined in advance-ruling jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the first proviso to Section 98(2) bars admission of the classification and rate questions; (iii) Whether Rubberised Cork Sheets/Agglomerated Cork Sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 45041010; (iv) Whether those goods are covered by Serial No. 310 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and taxable at 5%; (v) Whether notification benefit can be denied because the goods are not natural cork.

Issue (i): Whether entitlement to refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted-duty structure can be determined in advance-ruling jurisdiction.

Analysis: The matters enumerated in Section 97(2) are exhaustive and do not include determination of entitlement to refund of accumulated input tax credit under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 54(3).

Conclusion: The refund-eligibility question was not admitted as outside advance-ruling jurisdiction, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the first proviso to Section 98(2) bars admission of the classification and rate questions.

Analysis: No pending or concluded proceeding concerning the classification or rate question was established. A verbal doubt during refund scrutiny did not constitute a proceeding for the purpose of the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The statutory bar was not attracted and the classification and rate questions were admitted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Rubberised Cork Sheets/Agglomerated Cork Sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 45041010.

Analysis: Rule 1 requires classification according to the heading terms and relevant notes. Heading 4504 expressly covers agglomerated cork with or without a binding substance, without prescribing any limit on the quantity or type of binder. The manufacturing process showed that cork granules were agglomerated, while polymer and other materials formed the binder system; Chapter 45 contains no exclusion for cork agglomerated with rubber.

Conclusion: Rubberised Cork Sheets and Agglomerated Cork Sheets are classifiable under Tariff Item 45041010, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether those goods are covered by Serial No. 310 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and taxable at 5%.

Analysis: The notification adopts the Customs Tariff classification rules. Serial No. 310 covers all goods under heading 4504, including agglomerated cork with or without a binding substance, without limiting the entry to a particular tariff item or imposing a condition. The entry provides central tax at 2.5%, with corresponding State tax at 2.5%.

Conclusion: The goods are covered by Serial No. 310 and attract GST at 5% for supplies made on or after 22.09.2025, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether notification benefit can be denied because the goods are not natural cork.

Analysis: Chapter 45 separately identifies natural cork under headings 4501 to 4503 and agglomerated cork under heading 4504. The notification likewise separately covers natural cork and agglomerated cork. The classification turns on the tariff description and identity of the finished goods, not on the natural state or botanical origin of the cork granules.

Conclusion: The notification benefit cannot be denied because the goods are not natural cork or because cork originates from the bark of a cork oak tree, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Classification under heading 4504 carries the specified concessional rate, while refund entitlement remains outside the scope of the advance ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff heading expressly covers agglomerated cork with or without a binding substance, goods satisfying that description cannot be excluded based on binder content or lack of natural-cork status.

Issues: Whether excisable goods stock-transferred to sister units for captive consumption were correctly valued under Rule 8 rather than Rule 4.

Analysis: Rule 8 governs valuation of goods captively consumed by sister units in further manufacture. The prescribed cost of production is to be determined under CAS-4 in accordance with Circular No. 692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003, which is binding on the Revenue. The Rule 4 valuation principle applicable to transfers not involving captive consumption was inapplicable.

Conclusion: Duty was correctly paid under Rule 8 on the CAS-4 basis; Rule 4 did not apply and no differential duty was payable.

Issues: Whether an assessment made under section 143(3) in the name of a partnership firm that had ceased to exist upon conversion into a private limited company is valid.

Analysis: An assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must be made upon an existing assessee. The partnership firm had converted into a private limited company with effect from 19.01.2020, and this change was communicated to the Assessing Officer before the assessment order dated 29.09.2022. The firm was consequently non-existent on the date of assessment; settled judicial principles prohibit an assessment against such an entity.

Conclusion: The assessment order passed in the name of the non-existent partnership firm was void and was quashed.

Issues: Whether Indian Refractory Mortar exported by the appellants was classifiable under CTH 3816 0000 as refractory mortar or under CTH 2610 as chromium ores and concentrates.

Analysis: Applying the settled classification of identical goods, the mixture of chromite with magnesite and bentonite had a chemical composition distinct from chromite, was intended for refractory applications, and was not subjected to processes normal to the metallurgical extraction of chromium. Under Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, read with Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 26 and the HSN Explanatory Notes, it fell outside Chapter 26 and answered the description of refractory mortar under Heading 3816.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under CTH 3816 0000 and not under CTH 2610; no export duty or penalty is payable or imposable.

Ratio Decidendi: A mineral mixture not processed for, or actually used in, metallurgical extraction falls outside Chapter 26 under its chapter note and is classifiable under the heading describing its refractory function.

Issues: Whether a one-day delay in remitting employees' EPF/ESI contributions, caused by unavailability of the EPFO portal during Aadhaar seeding and payment-gateway glitches, disentitled the assessee to deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Timely credit of employees' contributions to the prescribed funds is ordinarily a condition for deduction under Section 36(1)(va). The record showed timely filing of the monthly electronic return and scheduling of payment, while the EPFO portal was unavailable during Aadhaar seeding and the payment was debited from the assessee's account on the following morning. The contemporaneous EPFO relief circular corroborated the technical disruption. The delay was accidental, bona fide, and exclusively attributable to external technical causes beyond the assessee's control.

Conclusion: The remittance was to be treated as made within the prescribed due date, and deduction under Section 36(1)(va) was allowable in respect of the employees' contributions.

Issues: Whether approval under section 80G may be denied to a religious or religious-cum-charitable institution without determining whether its religious expenditure exceeds five per cent of total income.

Analysis: Explanation 3 to section 80G excludes a purpose that is wholly or substantially wholly religious from the meaning of charitable purpose. Section 80G(5B), by its non obstante formulation, creates a deeming fiction: an institution or fund incurring religious expenditure not exceeding five per cent of its total income during the relevant previous year is treated as an institution to which section 80G applies. The five per cent test cannot be disregarded merely because the institution has religious or religious-cum-charitable objects. The record did not contain a verified computation establishing that the assessee's religious expenditure exceeded the prescribed threshold.

Conclusion: Approval under section 80G cannot be denied on the stated ground without determining the actual religious expenditure against the five per cent threshold; approval must follow if that threshold and the remaining statutory conditions are satisfied.

Issues: Whether a single composite show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods or financial years are sustainable under the statutory assessment scheme.

Analysis: Sections 73(3) and 74(3) contemplate proceedings referable to the relevant tax period. A combined notice and order for multiple years impairs the registered person's statutory rights, including the benefit available under Section 128 and the ability to pursue an effective appeal against an assessment for an individual tax period. The settled interpretation applicable to the matter does not permit a single notice or composite assessment order for more than one year where the due date for filing the annual return has been reached.

Conclusion: The composite notice and assessment order covering the tax periods 2021-22 to 2024-25 were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an order under Section 74 founded on a show-cause notice uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration violates principles of natural justice.

Analysis: After cancellation of registration, the taxpayer was not obliged to monitor the GST portal. Service of a show-cause notice solely through that portal was therefore insufficient, and the notice was required to be served through an alternative mode enabling an effective opportunity of response.

Conclusion: The order passed under Section 74 without valid service of notice and opportunity of hearing was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice; the Department may issue a proper notice and proceed in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement under Rule 164(6) for filing an application under the GST amnesty scheme is mandatory; (ii) Whether the ex parte original order should be set aside for fresh consideration where the entire tax demand had been discharged.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement under Rule 164(6) for filing an application under the GST amnesty scheme is mandatory.

Analysis: Section 128A permits waiver in specified circumstances subject to prescribed conditions. The comma preceding the qualifying phrase does not render those conditions directory. Rule 164 governs a time-bound scheme involving deemed approval, with time limits running from or closely linked to the waiver application. The prescribed time limit is an essential, and not merely procedural, requirement.

Conclusion: The condition under Rule 164(6) is mandatory and not directory, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte original order should be set aside for fresh consideration where the entire tax demand had been discharged.

Analysis: The full tax demand under the ex parte original order had been paid, thereby safeguarding revenue interests. In these circumstances, fairness required that the assessee receive a reasonable opportunity before a fresh determination.

Conclusion: The ex parte original order is set aside and the matter requires fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The mandatory character of the amnesty-application time limit remains unaffected, but the tax demand must be freshly determined after hearing the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In a time-bound amnesty scheme, a prescribed deadline for filing the waiver application is an essential mandatory condition and cannot be treated as directory.