Issues: Whether time spent in obtaining a certified copy could be excluded and the appeal treated as maintainable despite being filed beyond the maximum period prescribed for an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Analysis: The impugned order was pronounced and uploaded on the date of its pronouncement, followed by a public announcement. Knowledge of the order was not a ground for extending limitation under the insolvency regime. The material did not substantiate the asserted administrative impediments or diligent pursuit of the certified copy. Section 61(2) permits filing within thirty days and, upon sufficient cause, only a further period not exceeding fifteen days; insolvency proceedings are statutorily time-bound.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed beyond the non-extendable outer limit under Section 61(2), and no sufficient cause or basis for exclusion of time was established; it was therefore not maintainable.

Issues: (i) Whether amounts received from trading or sales and from renting property for hostel use constituted taxable services; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid; (iii) Whether Form 26AS and income-tax return information alone could sustain the service-tax demand.

Issue (i): Whether amounts received from trading or sales and from renting property for hostel use constituted taxable services.

Analysis: The trading receipts could not be connected to the assessee and, independently, transfer of title in goods by sale falls outside the definition of service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. Renting of the property for use as a hostel amounted to renting of a residential dwelling for use as residence. Such activity was covered by the negative-list exclusion under Section 66D(m) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The trading or sales receipts and the rental receipts were not taxable services. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed and explained the nature of the receipts through written replies and supporting material. The activities were reasonably regarded as outside the taxable-service net, and the Department did not establish any positive act of deliberate suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax.

Conclusion: The extended period was wrongly invoked. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Form 26AS and income-tax return information alone could sustain the service-tax demand.

Analysis: Third-party income-tax data did not identify a taxable service, its provider and recipient, or consideration paid as quid pro quo for such service. In the absence of evidence establishing the nature of the underlying activity, Form 26AS and income-tax returns could not by themselves justify confirmation of service tax.

Conclusion: Form 26AS and income-tax return information alone could not sustain the demand. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned service-tax demand, together with its consequential liabilities, had no legal basis because both categories of receipts were non-taxable and the extended limitation was unavailable.

Issues: Whether clandestine manufacture and clearance of Pan Masala and Scented Chewing Tobacco could be established from an unverified third-party transport record, statements and estimated computations without independent corroborative evidence.

Analysis: An allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal requires cogent, positive and corroborative evidence establishing the complete chain of excess raw-material procurement, manufacture, capacity, consumption of inputs, transportation, buyers, consideration and financial flow-back. File No. 17 was a third-party private document of unproved authorship, origin and reliability; the Department did not establish that the alleged laminates were delivered to, received by or consumed at the assessee's factory. The document's entries were internally inconsistent and were selectively interpreted without verification from regular transport records or the persons responsible for the transporter's affairs.

Analysis: The conversion of box entries into laminate weight through selected average figures was arbitrary because uniformity of the boxes' contents and weight was not established. Manufacture and clearance of chewing tobacco were further presumed solely from an alleged market practice of paired sales with Pan Masala, without evidence of tobacco inputs, manufacture, transport, buyers or sale proceeds. Successive presumptions and mathematical estimates cannot replace proof of each taxable event.

Conclusion: The Department failed to prove clandestine manufacture or clearance by legally admissible and corroborative evidence; the excise-duty and NCCD demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether interest on an amount deposited during investigation, subsequently refunded after the excise demand was set aside, is governed by Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) From what date and at what rate interest is payable on the refunded investigation deposits.

Issue (i): Whether interest on an amount deposited during investigation, subsequently refunded after the excise demand was set aside, is governed by Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The deposits were made during investigation before issuance of the show-cause notice, and the demand was ultimately set aside with consequential benefit; that order was not challenged by Revenue. Once the demand failed, the deposits ceased to bear the character of excise duty and remained amounts held without a legal claim. A refund application in the prescribed form could not convert such investigation deposits into duty refunds. Sections 11B and 11BB govern refund of duty and delayed statutory duty refunds, not return of investigation-stage revenue deposits.

Conclusion: Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 do not govern interest on the refunded investigation deposits. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): From what date and at what rate interest is payable on the refunded investigation deposits.

Analysis: The amounts were retained from their respective dates of deposit despite Revenue having no sustainable entitlement to them. In the absence of a governing statutory interest provision for these pre-Section 35FF investigation deposits, the applicable authorities supported compensation by interest from the date of deposit until actual refund. The consistent applicable rate was 12% per annum.

Conclusion: Interest is payable at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until the date of refund. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refunded investigation deposits carry compensatory interest for the entire period of their unlawful retention, to be calculated and paid within eight weeks.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an investigation deposit is refunded because the underlying excise demand is finally unsustainable, it is not a duty refund governed by the statutory delayed-refund regime, and interest is payable from deposit to refund at the applicable compensatory rate.

Issues: Whether a dealer whose finally determined taxable turnover was below the prescribed threshold could be denied the composition-scheme rate solely because revised returns were filed belatedly.

Analysis: The finally determined total and taxable turnover was below the threshold prescribed for the composition scheme. Having accepted that turnover, the assessment could not simultaneously apply the higher rate meant for dealers outside the scheme without establishing a turnover exceeding the threshold by cogent evidence. The time limit for revising returns under Rule 7(9) was procedural and could not defeat the substantive benefit where the department's own determination established eligibility and the differential tax and interest had been paid.

Conclusion: The dealer remained entitled to taxation at the composition rate of 0.5%; denial of that benefit on account of belated revised returns was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether proceedings and consequential demands founded solely on Rule 96(10), after its unconditional omission without a saving clause, could survive.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 was omitted with effect from 8 October 2024 without a saving clause. The applicable principle is that, absent a statutory saving provision or legal fiction preserving accrued proceedings, an omitted rule ceases to exist and no proceedings may be initiated or continued solely under it. The departmental instruction accepting this position also required field formations not to initiate or pursue such proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and consequential orders founded solely on omitted Rule 96(10) were unsustainable and stood quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a bona fide purchaser for value of a duty-free import licence, without notice of the original licence-holder's irregularity, is liable for duty, interest and redemption fine where the licence has not been cancelled by the issuing authority.

Analysis: A licence genuinely issued by the competent authority, though founded on fraud or misrepresentation at the export-obligation certification stage, is voidable rather than void and continues to operate unless avoided in the prescribed manner. The licence remained uncancelled and subsisting at the time of import. Instruments that were forged and never issued stand on a distinct footing. The purchaser had acquired the licence for value without notice of the upstream irregularity, and its lack of knowledge had already been accepted through deletion of the personal penalty. The fraud of the original licence-holder could not therefore be visited upon the innocent transferee.

Conclusion: A bona fide purchaser for value without notice of irregularity cannot be made liable for duty, interest or redemption fine on imports made under an uncancelled duty-free import licence. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A genuinely issued duty-free licence affected by upstream fraud is voidable, not void, and protects a bona fide transferee for value without notice until it is cancelled by the competent authority.

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with the conditions governing import of gold dore bars under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs disentitled the importer to exemption and justified confiscation and penalties; (ii) Whether nil-duty benefit under Notification No. 96/2008-Customs could be simultaneously claimed without fulfilling its conditions.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the conditions governing import of gold dore bars under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs disentitled the importer to exemption and justified confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The import licences expressly required compliance with the applicable concessional-duty notification. Condition 40 required each bar to meet the prescribed weight and purity requirements and required the mining company's packing list and assay certificate. The required mining-company documents were not produced; the supplied documents were issued by the supplier. Testing also showed purity exceeding the stipulated limit. Exemption notifications require strict construction, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing fulfilment of every condition. Voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as substantive evidence corroborating the documentary non-compliance.

Conclusion: The exemption was wrongly availed; the imported goods were prohibited goods liable to confiscation, and the demand of duty and penalties on the importer, its directors and customs broker were valid. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether nil-duty benefit under Notification No. 96/2008-Customs could be simultaneously claimed without fulfilling its conditions.

Analysis: Simultaneous benefits under exemption notifications require strict fulfilment of the conditions of each notification. The country-of-origin certificates were issued on the basis of control carried out and the exporter's declaration, without the requisite authentic supporting material. This did not establish compliance with the conditions for the least-developed-country exemption.

Conclusion: Nil-duty benefit under Notification No. 96/2008-Customs was unavailable, and the duty demand and penalties were sustainable. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Imports made without strict fulfilment of the licence-linked and country-of-origin exemption conditions attract the customs consequences applicable to prohibited goods and wrongful exemption claims.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer claiming exemption under one or more customs notifications must strictly prove compliance with every prescribed condition; failure of a licence-linked condition renders the claimed exemption unavailable and permits action for prohibited goods.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax on undisclosed receipts and wrongly claimed threshold exemption; (ii) Whether cum-tax benefit was available on the receipts of the unregistered second firm; (iii) Whether unutilised Cenvat credit could be allowed at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax on undisclosed receipts and wrongly claimed threshold exemption.

Analysis: The taxable receipts of both firms were higher than those declared in the ST-3 returns. The receipts of the second firm were not reported, the receipts of the registered firm were understated, and the threshold exemption was admittedly claimed without supporting eligibility. The second firm was also unregistered. These omissions established suppression of taxable value with intent to evade service tax, attracting the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The extended period was validly invoked and the service-tax demand based on the actual taxable receipts was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cum-tax benefit was available on the receipts of the unregistered second firm.

Analysis: The sample bills relied upon to establish that service tax had not been separately collected lacked essential particulars and covered only a negligible part of the receipts. No further documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the claim.

Conclusion: Cum-tax benefit was not available, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether unutilised Cenvat credit could be allowed at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The credit had not been availed within the prescribed time through the ST-3 returns. No fresh evidence was produced to establish entitlement to the claimed credit.

Conclusion: The claim for unutilised Cenvat credit was rightly denied, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability, interest and penalties remain legally sustainable, with no entitlement to cum-tax adjustment or the claimed Cenvat credit.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on allegations of receipt of invoices without goods, primarily founded on third-party statements and investigation material not validly established against the assessee.

Analysis: Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits recovery only of credit wrongly taken or utilised. Statements recorded during investigation could be relied upon only upon compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944: the maker must be examined before the adjudicating authority, the statement must be admitted by a reasoned opinion in the interests of justice, and an opportunity for cross-examination must follow. The adjudication gave general findings concerning numerous noticees without addressing the assessee's individual case, evidence, or specific defence. The material showed that the broker and transporter stated that goods were supplied under invoices, while there was no evidence connecting the assessee with any manipulation by the alleged suppliers. No stock verification or other corroborative investigation established non-receipt of inputs. Statements of witnesses not produced for cross-examination, and statements contradicted during cross-examination, could not be relied upon without compliance with Section 9D.

Conclusion: The allegation that the assessee availed CENVAT credit without receiving goods was not established by legally admissible and corroborated evidence; the denial of credit, interest and penalty was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether entire claimed purchases, including the GST component, could be added under Section 69C where sales were accepted and purchase evidence was partly available; (ii) Whether the addition for discrepancy in income from other sources was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether entire claimed purchases, including the GST component, could be added under Section 69C where sales were accepted and purchase evidence was partly available.

Analysis: Section 69C concerns expenditure whose source or explanation is not satisfactorily established. The declared sales were accepted and the trading results were not disturbed. Purchase invoices, GST returns and stock records were available, but critical evidence of actual movement and delivery of goods, including transport documents, e-way bills and delivery challans, was not furnished. The material therefore did not justify either complete acceptance of the purchases or their total disallowance.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged bogus purchases was restricted to Rs. 6,00,000, being 10% of Rs. 60,13,941, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for discrepancy in income from other sources was sustainable.

Analysis: The addition arose from the difference in income from other sources as compared with the original return. The material and submissions on record did not support its retention.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 16,146 was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjustment relating to disputed purchases is confined to Rs. 6,00,000, and the separate addition for income from other sources does not survive.

Issues: Whether the Revenue may retain recoveries exceeding 20% of the disputed demand, or adjust future refunds, during pendency of the first appeal without recorded reasons for departing from the CBDT norm.

Analysis: The CBDT Office Memoranda prescribe recovery of 20% of the disputed demand as the ordinary condition for stay pending first appeal. The stay order acknowledged that more than 20% had already been recovered, while no exceptional circumstances, lack of prima facie sustainability, or other recorded reasons justified recovery beyond that threshold. Continued retention of the excess, or further adjustment of refunds during the subsisting stay, would defeat the protection granted by the stay order.

Conclusion: The Revenue may retain only 20% of the disputed demand pending appeal; any amount recovered or adjusted beyond that level must be verified and refunded with applicable interest. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of interest income under section 80P(2)(d) on investments made with co-operative banks despite section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(d) grants deduction for interest or dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for this purpose. The exclusion under section 80P(4) applies to a co-operative bank's own entitlement to deduction and does not disqualify another co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest earned from investments with that bank. The settled interpretation of these provisions therefore covered the claim.

Conclusion: The deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is available to the assessee on interest earned from investments with co-operative banks, and no substantial question of law arises.

Issues: Whether excess customs duty paid on imports of crude soybean oil qualifying under the tariff rate quota scheme was refundable.

Analysis: The applicable tariff rate quota framework extended the concessional benefit to imports supported by bills of lading dated on or before 31 March 2023, where the goods landed before 30 June 2023. The importer's claim concerned the same product and period already governed by the prior ruling granting refund, and the Revenue did not dispute that settled position.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was quashed, and the excess customs duty is refundable in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against cancellation of GST registration and rejection of its revocation despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner did not satisfactorily establish that its reply to the show-cause notice had been filed within the stipulated time. The record also disclosed allegations of transactions and input-tax-credit claims involving firms whose registrations had been cancelled. A statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available, and the tax statute provided a complete remedial mechanism.

Outcome: Writ relief was declined in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail pending trial for the alleged offences.

Analysis: The request for bail under the statutory bail jurisdiction was assessed with reference to the filing of the charge sheet, custody since 15.07.2026, absence of flight risk and criminal antecedents, the maximum prescribed punishment of five years, and the absence of a need for further undertrial detention. The pending investigation concerning co-accused was safeguarded through stringent conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail on stringent conditions.