Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash seized from two bank lockers can be sustained in the hands of the assessee for AY 2023-24.

Analysis: The issue involves (a) whether the presumption arising from search and seizure applies to the assessee in respect of cash found in a locker held jointly with the spouse and in a locker held solely in the spouse's name, and (b) whether contemporaneous bank evidence and absence of operation during the relevant period negate the invocation of unexplained cash addition. Relevant legal framework includes the principles governing additions for unexplained cash and the need to establish ownership, possession or control of seized cash before sustaining additions in an assessee's hands. Material facts relied upon include bank certificates showing last operation date of the jointly held locker as 29.02.2020, the sole ownership of the other locker by the spouse, statements recorded during search identifying part of the cash as belonging to the spouse, and absence of documentary evidence linking the seized cash to the assessee for the year under appeal. The analysis applies the requirement that revenue must show sufficient material to attribute the seized cash to the assessee and considers that evidence of non-operation and third-party ownership are relevant to that attribution.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- under section 69A is not sustainable in the hands of the assessee and is deleted; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be levied where additions are made purely on an estimated basis.

Analysis: For the assessment year in question, additions were made on the basis of an estimate of bogus purchases (initially 20% by the assessing authority, later reduced to 15% by the Tribunal). Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were initiated and a penalty was imposed by the assessing officer. The appellate authority deleted the penalty. Judicial authorities have consistently addressed the issue of levying penalty where additions rest solely on estimation, including decisions of High Courts which have held that estimated additions, unsupported by concrete evidence of concealment, do not justify a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The impugned order under appeal applied this line of authority to the facts where the additions were purely estimate-based.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimated additions; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not leviable where the assessing authority's additions are made purely on an estimated basis and are not founded on concrete evidence of concealment of income.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 401 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned; (ii) Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of alleged non-deduction of tax at source on rent expenses (Rs.12,66,080) is sustainable where the tax audit report reflects figures replicated from a sister concern and no such payment was made by the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 401 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The affidavit filed by the assessee explains unfamiliarity with appellate procedures, inadvertent missing of communications due to health issues of the key managing partner, late discovery of an ex-parte order, and time taken to engage new tax counsel. Reliance is placed on established authority recognising 'reasonable cause' for condonation.

Conclusion: Delay of 401 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication in view of reasonable cause.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of Rs.12,66,080 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on rent is sustainable.

Analysis: The tax audit report of the assessee contained the same figures as those in the tax audit report of a sister concern; the profit and loss account and rent expense details of the assessee did not support any such rent payment. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) presupposes actual payment where tax was required to be deducted; a clerical replication of figures from another entity's audit report without corresponding payment undermines the basis for invoking section 40(a)(ia). On verification, the disallowance lacks factual foundation.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs.12,66,080 under section 40(a)(ia) is deleted and the grounds of appeal on this issue are allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is admitted despite delay and allowed on merits by deleting the impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), resulting in an overall decision favourable to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay may be condoned where reasonable cause is shown; a disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained in the absence of actual payments attracting tax deduction at source, and clerical reproduction of another entity's audit figures does not justify such disallowance.

Issues: Whether the discretionary decision of the licensing authority to impose a nominal penalty and not to revoke the customs broker licence, despite findings of regulatory violations, is liable to be interfered with by the Tribunal.

Analysis: Proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 are disciplinary in nature and involve the licensing authority's assessment of evidence, proportionality of sanction, and consequences under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The statutory scheme and precedent require restraint by appellate forums in substituting their own view for a reasoned administrative discretion; interference is warranted only where the decision is arbitrary, perverse, or violates principles of natural justice. The liability of an employer for acts of an employee is fact-dependent and involves presumptions and shifting onus; where the employer demonstrates corrective action and the original authority has considered delay, remedial steps, and the fate of parallel proceedings, the exercise of discretion to impose a lesser penalty rather than revocation can be sustained.

Conclusion: The licensing authority's exercise of discretion to impose a penalty of Rs.50,000 and not to revoke the customs broker licence is reasonable, proportionate, and not arbitrary; the appeal challenging that decision is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate forum will not disturb a reasoned disciplinary decision of the licensing authority imposing a non-drastic sanction unless the decision is arbitrary, perverse, violative of natural justice, or fails the test of proportionality; factual findings regarding employer liability for employee misconduct and remedial steps taken are material to sustaining lesser sanctions.

Issues: (i) Whether the date of default fell within the Section 10A moratorium period (25.03.2020-24.03.2021) thereby barring initiation of CIRP; (ii) Whether the original loan was novated by the restructuring proposals dated 21.02.2020 and 29.09.2020 so that no debt was due and payable at the time of the Section 7 admission; (iii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority ought to have refused admission under Section 7 by assessing the corporate debtor's viability instead of admitting the application.

Issue (i): Whether the date of default fell within the Section 10A moratorium period (25.03.2020-24.03.2021) thereby barring initiation of CIRP.

Analysis: The Section 10A bar applies only to defaults arising on or after 25.03.2020 and Explanation excludes defaults prior to that date. Even assuming the first restructuring plan was operative, it was subsumed by a subsequent restructuring where the first instalment fell due after 24.03.2021. The restructuring proposals were contingent on pre-implementation conditions which were not fulfilled and thus did not shift the original date of default alleged in the Section 7 application.

Conclusion: The plea of bar under Section 10A fails and does not prohibit initiation of CIRP. Conclusion against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the original loan was novated by the restructuring proposals dated 21.02.2020 and 29.09.2020 so that no debt was due and payable at the time of the Section 7 admission.

Analysis: Both restructuring proposals were conditional upon several pre-implementation requirements such as a favorable tariff order, creation of DSRA, proof of plant performance and availability of specified priority debt and working capital. Those conditions were not satisfied, and part payments accepted did not amount to acceptance of the restructuring or full satisfaction of the debt. Accordingly the restructuring proposals did not crystallize into novating agreements extinguishing the original debt.

Conclusion: The restructuring proposals did not novate the original loan; the debt remained due and payable. Conclusion against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority ought to have refused admission under Section 7 by assessing the corporate debtor's viability instead of admitting the application.

Analysis: The statutory scheme limits the Adjudicating Authority's admission-stage enquiry to verifying existence of a financial debt and default from records or evidence, without undertaking an extended inquiry into commercial viability. Precedents establishing the limited scope of admission and the non-justiciability of CoC commercial wisdom were applied; factual assertions of viability and billing did not contradict the existence of a large outstanding liability shown in the record.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority was correct to admit the Section 7 application; the viability arguments do not warrant interference. Conclusion against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The admission of the Section 7 application and initiation of CIRP were lawful; the appeal is dismissed and the interim stay of CIRP is vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: At the admission stage under a financial creditor's application, the adjudicating authority's role is limited to verifying existence of a financial debt and default from records or evidence; conditional restructuring proposals that have not satisfied pre-implementation conditions do not novate the original debt and do not shift the date of default for purposes of statutory moratoriums.

Issues: (i) Whether the suspension order dated 04.08.2025 placing the writ petitioner under suspension in contemplation of inquiry is sustainable; (ii) Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance for the period of suspension; (iii) Whether the departmental disciplinary proceedings should be directed to be completed within a specified time frame and whether adjournments should be restricted.

Issue (i): Sustainability of the suspension order dated 04.08.2025 placing the writ petitioner under suspension in contemplation of inquiry.

Analysis: The chronology of events shows deemed GST registration on 12.01.2025, physical verification and adverse report by the writ petitioner on 15.02.2025, alleged fraudulent ITC claim on 18.02.2025, issuance of show cause notice on 09.07.2025, cancellation of registration on 24.07.2025 and suspension order dated 04.08.2025; charge sheet had been issued on 01.08.2025. On prima facie consideration of the sequence, the adverse report preceded the alleged fraudulent claim and the disciplinary process was already engaged by issuance of charge sheet.

Conclusion: Suspension order dated 04.08.2025 is set aside (in favour of Assessee).

Issue (ii): Entitlement to subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 04.08.2025 until the date of the present order.

Analysis: The writ petitioner was under suspension by order dated 04.08.2025 which has been set aside; payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension is directed subject to compliance with applicable rules.

Conclusion: The writ petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance from 04.08.2025 until the date of this order subject to compliance with the Rules (in favour of Assessee).

Issue (iii): Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings should be completed within a stipulated period and whether unnecessary adjournments should be restricted.

Analysis: Charge sheet having been issued, the Court directed the disciplinary authority to conclude inquiry proceedings within time-bound periods: completion of departmental proceedings within three months from production of certified copy of this order and conclusion of inquiry within three months from 27.02.2026; adjournments to be granted only on exceptional circumstances and not beyond seven days at a stretch.

Conclusion: Departmental proceedings are to be concluded within the prescribed time frames and adjournments are restricted as directed (in favour of Assessee).

Final Conclusion: The collective effect of the decision is to restore the writ petitioner to normal service position by setting aside the suspension, to direct payment of subsistence allowance subject to rules, and to mandate a time-bound completion of the disciplinary inquiry with restricted adjournments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suspension in contemplation of inquiry is continued after charge-sheeting and the record prima facie shows the officer had submitted an adverse report before the alleged fraudulent act, continuation of suspension is not justified and the disciplinary proceedings must be conducted expeditiously with subsistence allowance payable subject to rules.

Issues: Whether duty, redemption fine and penalties can be imposed and recovery proceeded under Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of FPS/DEPB scrips without prior cancellation of those scrips by the issuing authority (DGFT).

Analysis: The Tribunal examined statutory recovery provision and Board/departmental instructions including Circular No. 334/1/2012-TRU dated 01.06.2012 and the DGFT Office Memorandum dated 26.12.2017 which advise that action for recovery under the provision may be initiated only after the instrument (DEPB/FPS scrip) has been cancelled by DGFT. The Tribunal considered authorities cited by the parties, including a CESTAT decision and the Supreme Court decision relied upon concerning forged or cancelled scrips, and distinguished cases where scrips were shown to be fraudulent or cancelled. The factual record does not show that DGFT has initiated cancellation of the scrips in question. In the absence of cancellation by DGFT, the departmental demand for duty, redemption fine and imposition of personal penalties was found to be premature and contrary to the Board's instructions and the cited authorities.

Conclusion: The appeals are allowed; demands for duty, redemption fine and personal penalties are set aside for all parties. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the declared quantity and value of the imported memory modules were liable to be rejected on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report, resulting in reassessment, confiscation and duty demand. (ii) Whether a power supply imported as a spare part for warranty replacement required BIS registration so as to justify absolute confiscation and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the declared quantity and value of the imported memory modules were liable to be rejected on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report, resulting in reassessment, confiscation and duty demand.

Analysis: The explanation supported by the supplier's communication and photographs showed that multiple component pieces formed a single part and that the counting adopted in the report had overstated the number of items. The rejection of this explanation merely because the importer had earlier accepted the Chartered Engineer's report was held insufficient, since the importer was entitled to challenge the earlier quantification with material showing the correct composition of the goods. On that basis, the finding of misdeclaration in quantity was not sustained, and the consequential reassessment, duty demand, interest, confiscation and redemption fine could not survive.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The finding of misdeclaration in respect of memory modules was set aside, along with the consequential duty and confiscation orders.

Issue (ii): Whether a power supply imported as a spare part for warranty replacement required BIS registration so as to justify absolute confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The relevant FAQ distinguished finished goods from spare parts and indicated that the compulsory registration requirement did not apply to spare parts/components unless separately notified. Serial No. 47 concerning standalone UPS/inverters did not govern spare parts, while the imported item was claimed and treated as a replacement spare. In that situation, the absence of BIS registration could not render the goods prohibited or justify absolute confiscation and penalty.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The order of absolute confiscation and penalty in respect of the power supply was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in substance and the appeal succeeded, with the imported goods not being subjected to the adverse findings that had been recorded below.

Ratio Decidendi: Where credible material shows that imported components were wrongly counted as separate items, a finding of misdeclaration cannot be sustained merely because an earlier report was accepted; likewise, spare parts are not subjected to a compulsory registration requirement applicable to finished goods unless they are separately notified.

Issues: (i) Whether Route Navigation Facility Charges (RNFC) and Terminal Navigation Landing Charges (TNLC) are exigible to service tax under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) Whether miscellaneous income received by the appellant is exigible to service tax; (iii) Whether the assessments for the period 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2005 can be treated as provisional and whether the show cause notice was issued within the normal limitation period.

Issue (i): Whether RNFC and TNLC are taxable under sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Sub-clause (zzm) brings within taxable service any service provided by airport authorities in an airport or civil enclave. The Tribunal's remand required determination whether the navigational services were provided entirely by personnel deployed inside the airport/civil enclave; if not entirely so, the services fall outside clause (zzm). Evidence showed RNFC is provided en route across the airspace and by ground/aeronautical stations located outside airport/civil enclave areas; AAI did not produce corroborative material showing the service was manned entirely from within airport/civil enclaves. TNLC by its definition relates to assistance during landing and use of airport facilities and is provided within the airport/civil enclave.

Conclusion: RNFC is not exigible to service tax (in favour of assessee). TNLC is exigible to service tax (in favour of revenue) and remanded for quantification.

Issue (ii): Whether miscellaneous income (profit on sale of fixed assets, interest on staff advances, sale of scrap, etc.) is exigible to service tax.

Analysis: The miscellaneous receipts were analysed by reference to their nature; the amounts claimed arise from transactions (sale of fixed assets, interest recoveries, sale of scrap) that do not represent consideration for taxable services. The adjudicating authority had not addressed these pleas in initial order; in de-novo proceedings ledger details were available and the nature of receipts indicated absence of service provision.

Conclusion: Demand of service tax on miscellaneous income is set aside (in favour of assessee).

Issue (iii): Whether the assessments for 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2005 were provisional and whether the show cause notice was within limitation.

Analysis: The jurisdictional communication permitted payment on provisional basis under Rule 6(4) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 only for the month of March 2005; no provisionally accepted assessment period covering September 2004 to February 2005 was shown. Periodical returns (ST-3) were filed on 26.07.2005 (and revised 02.03.2006); the show cause notice dated 18.07.2006 was issued within one year from the relevant date under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as applicable.

Conclusion: The assessments for 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2005 cannot be treated as having been provisionally assessed for that entire period; the show cause notice was issued within the normal limitation period (not time-barred) (in favour of revenue as to limitation).

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the demands relating to RNFC and miscellaneous income are set aside while the demand relating to TNLC is upheld and remanded for quantification; the show cause notice is within the limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: Sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies only where the service is provided in an airport or civil enclave by personnel deployed entirely within that airport or civil enclave; services provided en route by stations or personnel outside the airport/civil enclave are not covered by clause (zzm).

Issues: (i) Whether the services provided by the appellant to TCS fall within "business support services" under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 and whether the demand can be sustained for the extended period of limitation; (ii) Whether amounts received as rent constitute "renting of immovable property service" under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and whether demand for the extended period of limitation is maintainable; (iii) Whether the charges for training and related activities rendered by the appellant are taxable as "management or business consultancy service" under Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994; (iv) Whether penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the services provided to TCS are business support services (including infrastructural support) and whether extended period invocation is justified.

Analysis: The agreement shows provision of campus space, classrooms, faculty rooms, office, reprographic room, library, store room, computer labs, server room, conference hall, auditorium, maintenance of those facilities and residential accommodation for trainees. The Explanation to Section 65(104c) expressly includes infrastructural support services such as providing office along with office utilities and related facilities. The extended period was invoked on the basis of alleged suppression; record shows demand based on assessee's accounts and no evidence of willful suppression to evade tax.

Conclusion: The services qualify as business support services (infrastructural support) under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994; however, the extended period of limitation is not sustainable absent proof of suppression, and tax is confirmed only for the normal period along with interest.

Issue (ii): Whether rent received by the appellant is taxable as renting of immovable property and whether extended period invocation is justified.

Analysis: The matter of taxability of renting of immovable property was the subject of litigation and was made taxable by the Finance Act, 2010 (retrospective amendment). Courts have upheld the retrospective amendment. There is no evidence of mala fide non-payment by the appellant during the relevant period; the disputed nature of the law during the period negates intent to evade.

Conclusion: The rent receipts are taxable under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994, but the demand for the extended period is not sustainable; tax is confirmed only for the normal period with interest.

Issue (iii): Whether training and related charges constitute management or business consultancy service under Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The definition of management or business consultancy covers services connected with management of an organisation, including advice, consultancy or technical assistance in areas like financial, human resources, marketing or similar management functions. The appellant is an educational institution providing training facilities and conducting seminars primarily to promote education; it is not engaged in providing management consultancy or related advisory services as defined.

Conclusion: The charges for training and related activities do not fall within management or business consultancy services under Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994; the demand under this category is set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994 are sustainable.

Analysis: Penalties were imposed in conjunction with demands raised for extended periods. Given that suppression with intent to evade is not established for the demands held unsustainable for extended period and for those set aside, no penal liability subsists.

Conclusion: All penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed - tax for business support services and renting of immovable property is confirmed for the normal period with interest; tax for management or business consultancy is set aside; all penalties are set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Provision of campus facilities, accommodation and maintenance services falls within "infrastructural support services" under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994; invocation of the extended period of limitation requires proof of suppression with intent to evade, which is absent here.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of central excise duty (with interest and penalty) confirmed against the assessee based solely on private records recovered from a third party (M/s SPRML) and statements of that third party is sustainable; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the director under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable in the absence of evidence of his involvement in clandestine manufacture and clearance.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of central excise duty, interest and penalty confirmed on the basis of documents seized from a third party and statements of that third party is legally sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the evidentiary basis for alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance and identified the categories of tangible corroborative evidence ordinarily required (e.g., excess/raw material purchase, production/consumption records, transportation and delivery proof, receipt of sale proceeds, electricity consumption, links between recovered documents and factory activities). The Tribunal found that the Department relied solely on loose private records recovered from the third party and statements of third-party personnel, that copies of those documents were not furnished to the appellants and that the appellants were not permitted to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon. The Tribunal applied its precedents and relevant High Court authority emphasising that clandestine removal is a serious allegation requiring direct and corroborative evidence and that private third-party records alone, without corroboration and without opportunity for cross-examination, cannot form the sole basis for confirming demands.

Conclusion: The demand of central excise duty, interest and penalties confirmed on the basis of documents and statements recovered from the third party is unsustainable and is set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the director is sustainable absent evidence of his involvement in clandestine activities.

Analysis: The Tribunal observed that neither the director nor the general manager accepted the allegation of clandestine removal in their statements, that there was no corroborative evidence establishing clandestine manufacture and clearance, and that the primary demand itself was set aside for lack of admissible and corroborative evidence and for denial of cross-examination. In that factual and evidentiary context, imposition of penalty on the director was examined.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the director under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is unwarranted and is set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order confirming demands of central excise duty, interest and penalties and imposing penalty on the director is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for clandestine manufacture and clearance cannot be sustained where it is based solely on private records recovered from a third party and statements of third-party personnel without corroborative tangible evidence (such as excess raw material, production/consumption anomalies, transportation and receipt proofs, or receipt of sale proceeds) and where the assessee is not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon; in such circumstances the burden on Revenue to produce direct corroborative evidence remains unmet and the demand must be set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009 is applicable retrospectively; (ii) Whether appellant is entitled to cenvat credit after 07.07.2009 on disputed items where those items were used in fabrication of supporting structures and storage tanks; (iii) Whether appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit beyond one year after receiving invoices.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009 is applicable retrospectively.

Analysis: The notification amended Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Relevant High Court authorities have considered whether that amendment is clarificatory or prospective. The judgment in Vandana Global Ltd. concluded the amendment is not clarificatory and therefore operates prospectively from its commencement date.

Conclusion: Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009 is prospective and not retrospective; cenvat credit taken prior to 07.07.2009 is sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether appellant is entitled to cenvat credit after 07.07.2009 on disputed items used in fabrication of supporting structures and storage tanks.

Analysis: The entitlement depends on whether the disputed inputs were used in or in relation to manufacture of excisable goods or capital goods. Production of Chartered Engineer certificates and supporting records showing use for fabrication of storage tanks, supporting structures and plant components satisfies the connection between inputs and manufacture of dutiable final products according to relevant Tribunal and court decisions cited in the order.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to retain cenvat credit after 07.07.2009 for disputed items demonstrably used in fabrication of supporting structures and storage tanks.

Issue (iii): Whether appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit beyond one year after receiving invoices.

Analysis: The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not impose a one year limitation for taking credit prior to the introduction of a time limit effective 01.09.2014. Consequently, availment beyond one year for periods before 01.09.2014 is not barred by the Rules in force at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit beyond one year for invoices relating to the period prior to 01.09.2014.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, show cause notice and order are unsustainable on the decided issues and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules that is not expressly clarificatory operates prospectively from its commencement; inputs shown to be used in fabrication of capital goods or for manufacture of excisable products qualify for cenvat credit; no statutory one year bar existed for taking cenvat credit prior to 01.09.2014.

Issues: (i) Whether transportation costs for FOR destination sales form part of the assessable value. (ii) Whether the extended limitation period applies to the demand.

Issue (i): Whether transportation costs for FOR destination sales form part of the assessable value.

Analysis: Excise valuation turns on the place of delivery for FOR destination sales, which is the buyer's premises rather than the factory gate. Transportation to that point is relevant to determining the assessable value.

Conclusion: The transportation costs are includible in the assessable value. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period applies to the demand.

Analysis: Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, invocation of the extended period requires the specified conduct, including suppression or contravention with intent to evade duty. Conflicting decisions during the relevant period made it possible for the assessee to believe that transportation costs were not includible. No fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression or intent to evade was established. The entire demand related to a period beyond normal limitation.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period does not apply. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although freight was includible in the assessable value, the time-barred demand and its associated interest and penalty cannot stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand beyond the normal limitation period cannot be sustained without the statutory grounds for invoking the extended period; a bona fide belief arising from conflicting decisions does not establish intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether penalty notices issued without specifying whether the charge was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were valid.

Analysis: The notices retained both distinct limbs of Section 271(1)(c) without striking off the inapplicable limb, leaving the charge unspecified and denying a clear opportunity to meet the case. Such vagueness reflected non-application of mind and rendered the notices legally infirm under the governing jurisdictional precedent. The dismissal of a special leave petition in a factually distinguishable matter did not result in merger or amount to a declaration of law under Article 141; that matter also involved circumstances in which both limbs were attracted and the objection had not been raised at the earlier stages.

Conclusion: The penalty notices were invalid, and the consequential penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were liable to be deleted.

Issues: Whether prior attachment orders without a legally required proclamation can prevail against the petitioner's claim; and whether the proclamation requirement applies to the Central Goods and Services Tax Department.

Analysis: The State authorities sought time to place further material concerning steps allegedly taken after the attachment orders, including proceedings for issuance of proclamation. The applicability of the proclamation requirement to the Central Goods and Services Tax Department was also kept for consideration at the next hearing.

Outcome: The petition was adjourned for filing of an additional affidavit and further hearing.

Issues: Whether an assessment founded on a show-cause notice allowing less than seven days for response, contrary to the applicable faceless-assessment SOP, was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Clause N.1.3 of the applicable SOP requires at least seven days for responding to a show-cause notice. The impugned notice allowed only six days. This procedural illegality deprived the assessee of the stipulated opportunity to respond and violated principles of natural justice. Alleged lack of diligence in earlier proceedings did not cure the defect in the notice under challenge.

Conclusion: The assessment and consequential orders were set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without adjudicating the matter on merits, and whether the matter required remand for consideration of condonation of delay and fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Analysis: The appeal before the first appellate authority had been rejected for want of condonation of a substantial delay. The Tribunal noted that, in the interest of substantive justice and natural justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to explain the delay before the appellate authority. It further held that, once the question of condonation is examined, the appellate authority must then dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the statutory scheme governing appellate procedure.

Conclusion: The order dismissing the appeal in limine was set aside and the matter was remanded to the first appellate authority to decide condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to section 149(1), and whether the consequential assessment order could be sustained.

Analysis: The notice under section 148 was issued on 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, whereas, under the pre-amended limitation regime, it could have been issued only up to 31.03.2022. The amended first proviso to section 149(1) prohibited issuance of notice where, on the date of commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 regime, such notice could not have been issued under the old limitation. The period contemplated in the fifth and sixth provisos was held not to extend or revive a notice already barred under the first proviso. On that basis, the notice was treated as time-barred and the assessment made pursuant to it as without valid jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and the assessment order based on it was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original was liable to be entertained despite inordinate delay, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to any statutory remedy under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order-in-original pertaining to the tax period October 2014 to March 2017 after a delay of about four years. The explanation that the proprietor was not well educated and depended on an authorised representative was not accepted as sufficient, particularly because the petitioner had participated in the original proceedings and furnished a reply. The Court held that the belated challenge attracted the principle against entertaining stale writ claims, and relied on the cited precedent to decline interference. It also noted that any statutory remedy, if permissible, remained open.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit to be entertained on account of inordinate delay and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction against the impugned tax demand, leaving the petitioner to pursue any permissible statutory relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging a tax demand may be declined at the threshold where there is inordinate delay and the explanation for approaching the Court belatedly is insufficient, especially when the petitioner participated in the original proceedings.

Issues: Whether Rule 86A permits restriction of debit from an Electronic Credit Ledger beyond the input tax credit available in that ledger at the time of its invocation.

Analysis: Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 authorises a temporary restriction on debit of input tax credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger where the prescribed officer has recorded reasons to believe that such credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible. Availability of credit in the ledger is a condition precedent to exercise of that power. The rule permits restriction of available credit; it does not authorise debit entries by the department or creation of a negative ledger balance. Recovery of wrongly availed or utilised credit must be pursued through the statutory recovery provisions. Prior notice is not necessary for a valid emergent restriction under Rule 86A, but the restriction must remain within the credit available when the action is taken.

Conclusion: Rule 86A does not permit negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger or restriction exceeding the input tax credit available therein at the relevant time; the impugned entries were invalid to that extent, in favour of the assessee.