Issues: (i) Whether manganese ore subjected to washing, removal of waste, crushing and sizing ceased to be ore and became concentrate so as to deny exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE; (ii) Whether interest was payable on the duty demand in the facts of provisional assessment.

Issue (i): Whether manganese ore subjected to washing, removal of waste, crushing and sizing ceased to be ore and became concentrate so as to deny exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.

Analysis: The imported goods were not run-of-mine ore but had undergone processing before shipment. The relevant chapter note deems conversion of ores into concentrates as manufacture, and the adjudicatory record showed screening, sizing, crushing and removal of overburden and foreign matter. In the light of the deeming provision, the HSN explanation and the strict construction applicable to exemption notifications, the processes were treated as converting the ore into concentrate. The claimed exemption was therefore held unavailable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the duty demand in the facts of provisional assessment.

Analysis: The order records that, following the applicable statutory position and the earlier coordinate decision relied upon, interest becomes payable where duty remains unpaid after the relevant liability is determined, and the provisional character of assessment did not exclude such consequence on the facts found.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, the duty demand was sustained, and the appeals did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods of Chapter 26 are subjected to processing that removes foreign matter and improves the ore into concentrate, the deeming provision treating conversion of ore into concentrate as manufacture excludes the goods from an ore-only exemption notification.

Issues: Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable where the importer correctly described the imported goods in the Bills of Entry but claimed an incorrect tariff classification in bona fide belief, and whether such conduct amounts to misdeclaration attracting retrospective duty and penalties.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the sample Bills of Entry, commercial invoice and accompanying documents and found that the description of the goods as lithium-ion battery (reference number BT.00603.041 BTY PACK LI+6C Sanyo (Battery), (computer parts)) was correctly and fully disclosed. Applying the established legal principle that where full and correct particulars as to the nature of goods are disclosed, a mistaken classification made in bona fide belief does not constitute misdeclaration warranting invocation of the extended period, the Tribunal relied on precedents which hold that wrong classification alone, without suppression or dishonest intention, cannot sustain extended period demands or penalties. The Tribunal also considered the impact of self-assessment/ACP/RMS procedures and held that mere facilitation under such schemes does not, by itself, convert a bona fide classification error into suppression or misdeclaration capable of attracting extended limitation or penal provisions.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA are not sustainable in the present case; the goods were correctly described and the classification error was bona fide, therefore the demand under extended period and penalties are set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Leave Petition is liable to be dismissed for inordinate delay of 512 days in filing without sufficient cause; (ii) Whether the Special Leave Petition merits interference on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the SLP is barred by inordinate delay lacking sufficient cause.

Analysis: The Court examined the period of delay and the absence of sufficient cause and recorded that the delay of 512 days was inordinate and no adequate explanation was furnished to justify condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The SLP is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause; decision is in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the SLP is maintainable on merits and warrants interference.

Analysis: The Court considered the merits of the petition and found no substance warranting interference with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The SLP is dismissed on merits; decision is in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: A Special Leave Petition with an inordinate unexplained delay may be dismissed for want of sufficient cause, and where no substantive merit is shown, interference is refused.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the pending applications were disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether sums recovered by an employer from employees as contribution to provident/ESI funds are income under Section 2(24)(x) and whether deduction under Section 36(1)(va) is available only if such sums are credited to the relevant fund on or before the statutory due date; (ii) Whether the non-obstante clause in Section 43B applies to employees' contributions for the purpose of allowing deduction on deposit by the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1).

Analysis: The Court recorded that High Courts are divided: one line treats employees' contributions as employer's income under Section 2(24)(x) and permits deduction under Section 36(1)(va) only if credited by the statutory due date specified under the relevant fund enactments; another line treats employees' and employer contributions as governed by Section 43B, allowing deduction if deposited by the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1). The Court referred to the conflicting authorities and observed that Explanation 5 to Section 43B and distinctions drawn in previous cases warrant consideration.

Conclusion: The Court did not decide the issues on merits but issued notice and listed the matter for further hearing returnable in four weeks; Dasti permitted.

Final Conclusion: The dispute concerning (i) the treatment of employees' contributions as income and the temporal condition for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) and (ii) the applicability of Section 43B is referred for adjudication by the Court; no final decision on the merits has been rendered in this order.

Outcome: Delay condoned. Special leave petition dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, were disposed of.

Issues: Whether the interest expenditure of Rs. 1,06,32,156 claimed by the assessee is allowable as deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against interest income.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the factual and documentary material admitted during the first appellate proceedings, including confirmations, ledger accounts and computation of income, and the remand report called from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that interest income from loans advanced to M/s Ariha Diamonds Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was disclosed and offered to tax, and that borrowings used to fund those advances attracted interest which was paid by the assessee. Having considered the statutory test under section 57(iii) and the authorities on intent and nexus, the Tribunal found that the material on record established a direct and proximate nexus between the interest paid and the interest income earned; the Assessing Officer had not challenged the genuineness of the income or expenditure in the remand proceedings; and the denial of deduction solely for lack of documentary linkage was not sustainable in view of the admitted evidence and remand process.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 1,06,32,156 under section 57(iii) is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Deduction under section 57(iii) is allowable where the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from other sources and a direct/proximate nexus between the expenditure and such income is established; admission of relevant evidence and absence of adverse findings in remand proceedings preclude rejection of the claim merely for lack of formal documentary linkage.

Issues: Whether cleaning and sanitation services provided by the appellant to Government hospitals are exempt from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and whether the extended period of limitation and penalties can be invoked where exemption is interpretational.

Analysis: The factual matrix shows contracts for cleaning, sanitation and waste disposal entered into with a Government-run medical hospital. Section 65B(51) defines taxable services and Section 66B prescribes levy; Notification No. 25/2012-ST (as substituted by Notification No. 6/2014-ST) exempts services provided to Government, a local authority or a governmental authority by way of activities relating to water supply, public health, sanitation conservancy, solid waste management or slum improvement and up-gradation. The Court examined the scope of the agreement (cleaning of premises, toilets, drainage, disposal of normal and bio-waste) and compared it with the functions described in the exemption entry, concluding these services fall within sanitation conservancy and related activities covered by the notification. The Tribunal relied on co-ordinate bench decisions (held up by the Supreme Court) that applied the same notification to cleaning and housekeeping services provided to Government hospitals, and on authority that where the question is one of interpretation of an exemption notification, invocation of the extended period for raising demand is not appropriate in absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement. Given no evidence of fraud or suppression and that the Superintendent legitimately entered the contract on behalf of the Government hospital, the extended period and penalties under the Finance Act could not be sustained. The absence of meritorious tax liability negates the imposition of penalties.

Conclusion: The cleaning and sanitation services provided by the appellant to Government hospitals are exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST as substituted by Notification No. 6/2014-ST; extended period of limitation is not invocable for this interpretational issue and penalties cannot be sustained. Appeals allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal as ex parte without adequate proof of service of hearing notices (including notices uploaded on the electronic portal) is sustainable and whether the appellate order and the detention/penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 can be maintained.

Analysis: The Court examined the record of service and the parties' competing stand on whether hearing dates/notices were communicated to the appellant through the portal. The respondents relied on entries showing information was loaded in the portal whereas the petitioner denied receipt. The Court referred to the practical difficulties and the comparative decision-law on disputed electronic service, and noted that the appellate authority's order does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the appellant was given effective notice of hearing. In view of the unresolved dispute regarding communication of hearing dates and the need to afford the appellant a real opportunity of hearing, the Court concluded that the appellate order rejecting the appeal in an ex parte manner could not be sustained and the matter required fresh consideration by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The appellate order dated 10.09.2025 rejecting the appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law, giving the petitioner opportunity to receive documents and be heard; the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the original detention/penalty order.

Issues: (i) Whether unlocking/activation of mobile phones constitutes "taken into use" for the purposes of duty drawback under the Duty Drawback Rules and related CBIC Clarifications; (ii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to release of duty drawback amounts and payment of interest (including for the previous period) in terms of the judgment dated 13 February 2025 and subsequent events.

Issue (i): Whether unlocking/activation of mobile phones is "taken into use" under the proviso to Rule 3 of the Duty Drawback Rules.

Analysis: The procedures adopted for unlocking/activating mobile phones were examined in relation to the Duty Drawback Rules and the Clarifications issued by the Board. The Clarifications treated unlocking/activation as "taken into use"; this interpretation was assessed against the statutory scheme and the scope of Rule 3. The court analysed whether the functional steps of unlocking/activation alter the character of the goods so as to constitute use within the meaning of the proviso to Rule 3.

Conclusion: Unlocking/activation of mobile phones constitutes mere configuration to make the product usable and does not amount to "taken into use" under the proviso to Rule 3. The CBIC Clarifications treating unlocking/activation as "taken into use" are quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Petitioners are entitled to release of duty drawback amounts and payment of interest, including for the previous period, in light of the High Court judgment, dismissal of the SLP, and subsequent conduct of the Customs Department.

Analysis: The court considered the operative directions of the judgment dated 13 February 2025, the dismissal of the Department's SLP by the Supreme Court on 18 July 2025, and subsequent steps taken by the Department including an unlisted review petition and delay in implementation. The court examined entitlement to payment of drawback amounts and the applicability of interest under Section 75A where the Department failed to give effect to the judgment within prescribed time frames.

Conclusion: The Petitioners are entitled to release of the duty drawback amounts in accordance with the earlier judgment. The Customs Department was directed to finalise computations with the Petitioners and release the amounts by 28 February 2026. The court held that interest would be payable in accordance with law where the statutory time for payment had elapsed; the court granted relief including consideration of interest for the previous period given the Department's failure to comply after dismissal of the SLP.

Final Conclusion: The petitions are allowed in the terms set out: the administrative Clarifications are quashed, the impugned SCNs and Orders-in-Original relying on those Clarifications are quashed, and the Customs Department is directed to compute and release the duty drawback amounts (and applicable interest as provided by law) to the Petitioners by the specified date; non-compliance permits revival of the petitions and further action.

Ratio Decidendi: Unlocking/activation that only configures goods for use does not amount to "taken into use" under Rule 3 of the Duty Drawback Rules; administrative clarifications contrary to that statutory interpretation are liable to be quashed, and consequential payment of duty drawback and statutory interest must follow once higher court remedies are exhausted or dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether sale/registration of domain names and provision of hosting (including hosting space renewal, hosting backup) are taxable as Information Technology / software services attracting service tax; (ii) Whether extended period of limitation (extended period) is invokable against the appellant for the assessed period.

Issue (i): Whether domain registration, sale of domain, web hosting, hosting-space renewal and related activities are taxable as Information Technology (software) services.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the nature of services rendered by the appellant against the statutory classification of taxable services. It considered earlier Tribunal decisions, notably Dimakh Consultants Pvt. Limited v. CCE, Pune (CESTAT Mumbai) which treated web hosting, server co-location and domain registration as taxable under Information Technology software services brought into the statute effective 16.05.2008. The Tribunal rejected reliance on authorities addressing franchise services or distinct issues (e.g., Directi/Jet Airways) as inapplicable to the present factual and legal context. The adjudicating authority had quantified taxable value excluding certain amounts but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside that exclusion and confirmed demand based on the view that such activities are taxable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal holds that domain registration, sale of domain, web hosting and related hosting services are taxable as Information Technology (software) services and that the impugned order confirming demand in respect of these activities is sustainable. Conclusion is against the appellant and in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the department could invoke the extended period of limitation for the assessed years against the appellant.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered facts that the appellant obtained service tax registration only on 20.12.2011, had not filed returns or paid service tax prior to registration, and that the matter came to light following departmental investigation. Relying on authorities addressing non-registration and suppression (including Dharampal Satyapal and subsequent High Court/Tribunal decisions), the Tribunal concluded that non-registration and failure to file returns amounted to circumstances permitting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The Tribunal holds that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked by the adjudicating authority for the confirmed demand. Conclusion is against the appellant and in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal upholds the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming service tax liability on domain registration and hosting-related activities and upholds the invocation of extended limitation, while remanding the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for quantification of demand, interest and penalty by a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Web hosting and domain registration activities constitute taxable Information Technology (software) services for the relevant period, and failure to register and not file returns permits invocation of the extended period of limitation for assessment under the Finance Act, 1994.

Issues: Whether the cognizance order could stand without an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Analysis: Cognizance was taken on the day the complaint was filed, and the absence of a hearing before process was issued was undisputed. The first proviso to section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 supplied the applicable hearing requirement.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was set aside and a fresh order directed after hearing the petitioner. The merits remained open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the first proviso to section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies, an opportunity of hearing must be afforded before cognizance is taken on a complaint.

Issues: Whether delivery of a motor vehicle with its original documents constituted a completed sale notwithstanding the absence of registered transfer of ownership, and whether the assessment treating the transaction as a sale warranted writ interference.

Analysis: Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act treats sale as a transfer. Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 distinguishes a completed sale, where property in goods is transferred, from an agreement to sell. Under Section 32, delivery and payment are concurrent conditions; delivery that divests the seller of possession, including symbolic delivery, may complete the sale. The delivery was not on approval or on sale-or-return so as to attract Section 24. Non-compliance with registration-transfer requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules did not negate the transfer of ownership. Retention of a duplicate key amounted at most to a seller's lien, while non-payment attracted an unpaid seller's remedy. The delayed complaint after seizure of the vehicle supported refusal to displace the assessment in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Delivery of the vehicle with its original documents constituted a completed sale; absence of registration transfer and retention of a duplicate key did not establish that no sale had occurred. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Proper tariff classification of the imported thermal/barcode printers; (ii) Sustainability of the extended period of limitation and penalty; and (iii) Imposition of redemption fine where the goods are unavailable for confiscation.

Issue (i): Proper tariff classification of the imported thermal/barcode printers.

Analysis: The applicable tariff classification stood settled by the relevant Tribunal precedent. Applying that classification, the imported printers fall under Customs Tariff Item 84433290 rather than Customs Tariff Item 84433210.

Conclusion: The printers are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 84433290, and differential duty for the normal limitation period is sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of the extended period of limitation and penalty.

Analysis: Classification of the printers had remained disputed over time, and the declared tariff classification was made on a bona fide belief. The claimed tariff heading was available for departmental verification at the time of clearance; consequently, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty was not established.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period and the penalty cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Imposition of redemption fine where the goods are unavailable for confiscation.

Analysis: The goods had already been cleared and were not physically available for confiscation. Redemption fine is unsustainable where the goods are unavailable for confiscation.

Conclusion: No redemption fine can be imposed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Only the differential duty attributable to the normal limitation period survives; the extended-period liability, penalty, and redemption fine do not survive.

Issues: Whether the grounds stated warranted condonation of the 719-day delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanations relating to a possible remedy under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, delay in obtaining proof of service of the appellate order, and pendency of a review application lacked particulars of the relevant dates and steps taken. No necessity for obtaining proof of service before filing the appeal was established.

Conclusion: The stated grounds did not justify condonation of the 719-day delay.