Issues: (i) Whether technical testing and analysis services rendered by a clinical research organisation undertaking sponsor-approved clinical trials are exempt from service tax under the relevant exemption notifications; (ii) Whether the amount recovered from employees upon premature resignation was taxable as commercial training or coaching service; (iii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid; and (iv) Whether interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether technical testing and analysis services rendered by a clinical research organisation undertaking sponsor-approved clinical trials are exempt from service tax under the relevant exemption notifications.

Analysis: The exemption covered testing and analysis of newly developed drugs on human participants by a clinical research organisation approved to conduct clinical trials by the Drugs Controller General of India. Under the applicable regulatory framework, trial permission is issued to the sponsor, while a clinical research organisation performs delegated trial functions under written arrangements. The clinical research organisation had performed that role for sponsors holding approvals for the concerned trials and had registered the trial activity with the clinical-trials registry. Requiring a separate institutional approval which the regulator did not issue to clinical research organisations would impose an impossible condition. Strict construction of an exemption applies only where genuine ambiguity remains.

Conclusion: The technical testing and analysis services were exempt from service tax; the related demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount recovered from employees upon premature resignation was taxable as commercial training or coaching service.

Analysis: The recovery represented a deposit taken from employees trained and appointed subject to a minimum service commitment, refundable upon completion of that commitment and forfeited or recovered upon premature resignation. It was not a fee charged by a commercial training or coaching centre for imparting skill or knowledge. The employer-employee relationship remained one of contract of service. The amount was compensation for breach of the employment commitment and was not consideration for commercial training or coaching or for tolerating an act or situation.

Conclusion: The employee recoveries were not consideration for any taxable service; the demand under commercial training or coaching service was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention accompanied by intent to evade tax. The Department had sought and received full particulars of the clinical research activity several years before issuance of the notices. Non-registration or non-filing based on a disclosed and tenable belief in exemption did not constitute deliberate suppression or a positive act undertaken with intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: As the principal service-tax demands did not survive, interest could not be sustained. Further, the ingredients necessary for penal liability, including suppression or contravention with intent to evade tax, were absent.

Conclusion: Interest and all penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The services and employee recoveries were outside the asserted tax liabilities, the extended limitation was unavailable, and no consequential fiscal or penal liability remained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for clinical-research services cannot be construed to require a separate regulatory approval that the competent regulator does not issue to clinical research organisations; and employee bond-forfeiture recoveries are compensatory, not consideration for a taxable service.

Issues: (i) Whether sub-letting hoarding sites to advertising agencies before 1 May 2006 attracted service tax as Advertising Agency Service; (ii) Whether the post-1 May 2006 demand for sale of space or time for advertisement could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether sub-letting hoarding sites to advertising agencies before 1 May 2006 attracted service tax as Advertising Agency Service.

Analysis: Mere sub-letting of advertising sites to an advertising agency, without providing the services comprised in the taxable category, did not make the hoarding owner liable to service tax.

Conclusion: Sub-letting hoarding sites to advertising agencies during the pre-1 May 2006 period was not taxable as Advertising Agency Service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the post-1 May 2006 demand for sale of space or time for advertisement could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The arrangement was revenue-neutral because the advertising agencies paid tax on the consideration received from clients, including amounts paid for the hoarding space. The demand was based on statutory records, with no positive act of concealment identified. Regular returns had been filed, and the liability involved an interpretational dispute amid conflicting views. A bare allegation of suppression could not justify extended limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the post-1 May 2006 demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax demands for both periods, together with consequential interest and penalties, could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked on a bare allegation of suppression where the demand arises from disclosed statutory records and the liability involves a bona fide interpretational dispute.

Issues: (i) Whether the unsecured-loan addition was sustainable despite evidence of the creditors' identity, creditworthiness and genuine transactions; (ii) Whether purchase inflation could be inferred from a comparison between the purchase price of rice and the valuation of closing stock; (iii) Whether an addition based on estimated rice yield was valid without rejection of the books of account; (iv) Whether cash paddy purchases from farmers were disallowable as unverifiable despite supporting registers, gate passes and vouchers.

Issue (i): Whether the unsecured-loan addition was sustainable despite evidence of the creditors' identity, creditworthiness and genuine transactions.

Analysis: The assessee furnished PAN details, income-tax returns, bank statements, confirmations, financial statements and cash-flow statements of the loan creditors. The creditors were regular return filers carrying on business, with turnover and disclosed presumptive income supporting the cash deposits preceding the advances. No discrepancy was identified in the evidence, and part of the loans from the same creditors had been accepted. An addition founded only on suspicion concerning preceding cash deposits, without contrary material, was impermissible.

Conclusion: The identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions stood established; the unsecured-loan addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether purchase inflation could be inferred from a comparison between the purchase price of rice and the valuation of closing stock.

Analysis: The stock register and purchase records established that the entire quantity of purchased rice was sold during the year and that no purchased rice remained in closing stock. The closing stock valued at the lower of cost or market value related to manufactured rice, consistently valued under the established accounting method, and not to purchased rice. The comparison adopted for alleging inflated purchases was therefore factually erroneous.

Conclusion: The purchase-inflation addition was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an addition based on estimated rice yield was valid without rejection of the books of account.

Analysis: Variation in rice yield was supported by the nature and quality of paddy, including moisture conditions, while the quantitative records and audited accounts were maintained. Estimation of income requires satisfaction of the conditions for rejection of books under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, followed by best judgment assessment under Section 144 of that Act. No defect warranting rejection of the books was recorded, and the assessment had been framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A marginal comparison with a prior year's yield could not independently support estimated suppressed sales.

Conclusion: The yield-based addition, made without valid rejection of the books of account, was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether cash paddy purchases from farmers were disallowable as unverifiable despite supporting registers, gate passes and vouchers.

Analysis: The purchase register, production register, stock register, mill-gate passes and vouchers recorded the dates, quantities, rates, amounts and recipients of payments for paddy purchases. Small farmers supplying agricultural produce were not expected to issue tax invoices. The books were audited, and no defect was found in the contemporaneous records correlating purchases with production and sales. The finding of unverifiability was based on suspicion rather than contrary evidence.

Conclusion: The cash-purchase addition was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All four impugned additions lacked a valid evidentiary or legal foundation and could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether a fully disclosed claim for deduction of employees' PF and ESI contributions, subsequently disallowed following clarification of law, constituted under-reporting of income attracting penalty under section 270A.

Analysis: Section 270A penalises under-reporting of income, while section 36(1)(va) governs the deduction of employees' contributions. The contributions were disclosed in the tax-audit report, books of account and return, and the claim was consistent with the legal position prevailing when it was made. The disallowance resulted from subsequent judicial clarification that the contributions had to be deposited within the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes. A legal claim unsupported after such clarification, where all particulars are truly and fully disclosed, does not amount to under-reporting or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Conclusion: The claim did not constitute under-reporting of income; the penalty under section 270A was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) retained both statutory limbs without striking off the inapplicable charge. This mechanical notice failed to inform the assessee of the precise default alleged and deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond. The defect was held to be fundamental and to vitiate the initiation of penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was invalid, and the consequential penalty order could not be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether an addition may rest solely on a retracted survey statement where the audited books disclose a lower profit and no defect or corroborating material is found; (ii) Whether unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits when confirmations, income-tax returns and bank statements of the lenders were furnished and the loans were repaid during the year; (iii) Whether disallowance of contractual expenditure was permissible for short deduction of tax at source under Section 194C; and (iv) Whether capital introduction was unexplained under Section 69 despite a bank trail showing its source from the assessee's proprietary concern.

Issue (i): Whether an addition may rest solely on a retracted survey statement where the audited books disclose a lower profit and no defect or corroborating material is found.

Analysis: A survey admission, without corroborating material, could not by itself sustain an addition. The audited books had not been shown to contain any defect, notwithstanding their rejection under Section 145(3), and the lower profit disclosed in the profit and loss account could not be displaced solely on the basis of the retracted statement.

Conclusion: The addition for the difference in profit was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits when confirmations, income-tax returns and bank statements of the lenders were furnished and the loans were repaid during the year.

Analysis: The documentary material furnished established the loan transactions and the lenders, and the loans had also been repaid during the relevant year. No addition under Section 68 was sustainable on these facts.

Conclusion: The addition for unsecured loans was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether disallowance of contractual expenditure was permissible for short deduction of tax at source under Section 194C.

Analysis: Tax had been deducted at a lower rate on contractual payments. A disallowance could arise where tax was not deducted at all, but not merely because of a shortfall in the rate of deduction.

Conclusion: The disallowance for short deduction of tax at source was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether capital introduction was unexplained under Section 69 despite a bank trail showing its source from the assessee's proprietary concern.

Analysis: The bank records traced the capital introduced through the savings account to withdrawals from the current account of the assessee's proprietary concern. The source of the capital stood explained by material already available on record.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained capital introduction was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed additions were unsustainable under the applicable provisions, and the assessed income must be recomputed after excluding those additions.

Issues: Whether, where purchases from named suppliers are not fully verified but the goods are reflected in stock records and the corresponding sales are accepted, the entire purchase amount, a 10% ad hoc addition, or only an additional profit element is taxable.

Analysis: The purchases were supported by invoices, banking-channel payments, ledger accounts, purchase and sales registers, stock records, goods receipt documents, VAT records and transaction-wise quantitative mapping with accepted sales. The books and quantitative reconciliation disclosed no identified defect and there was no evidence that the purchase payments were returned in cash. Information identifying suppliers as suspicious, unserved notices and incomplete transport particulars justified doubt regarding the identity of the actual suppliers, but did not establish that goods recorded in stock and sold had not been purchased at all. Third-party material not disclosed to the assessee could not conclusively displace the documentary and quantitative evidence. The circumstances supported, at most, an inference that goods may have been procured through alternative sources, warranting taxation of any additional margin or saving rather than disallowance of the full purchase cost. The case was distinguishable from unexplained-expenditure cases because the source of expenditure, banking trail, stock movement and corresponding sales stood established. A 10% estimate lacked correlation with the assessee's trading margins, disclosed gross profit or comparable material.

Conclusion: Only an additional gross-profit element of 2% of the disputed purchases, over and above the gross profit already disclosed, is taxable; the balance of the 10% addition is deleted. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C) could be denied to a registered charitable trust solely because Form 10B was furnished belatedly.

Analysis: The assessee was a registered charitable trust engaged in charitable activities, and Form 10B was available during the appellate proceedings despite being furnished after the prescribed date and after processing of the return under section 143(1). The requirement of furnishing the audit report in Form 10B was treated as procedural and directory; a technical delay in compliance did not negate the substantive eligibility for exemption.

Conclusion: Belated filing of Form 10B does not disentitle the assessee to exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C); the denial of exemption was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the claimed benefit.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under Section 148 on the basis of investigation information was valid where the recorded reasons reflected borrowed satisfaction; (ii) Whether the short-term capital loss on sale of shares could be disallowed merely by treating the transactions as penny-stock accommodation entries.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated under Section 148 on the basis of investigation information was valid where the recorded reasons reflected borrowed satisfaction.

Analysis: The information forming the basis of reopening referred to alleged escaped income of a substantially different amount from the loss ultimately disallowed in assessment. This showed absence of independent application of mind to the information received and reliance on borrowed satisfaction for reopening.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the short-term capital loss on sale of shares could be disallowed merely by treating the transactions as penny-stock accommodation entries.

Analysis: The assessee furnished contract notes, bank records, broker account, demat account and investment records showing that the share transactions were undertaken through the stock exchange using a registered broker. As no defect in this evidence was identified, a general allegation concerning penny-stock transactions did not displace the evidentiary burden discharged by the assessee.

Conclusion: The short-term capital loss was allowable and its disallowance was unsustainable. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and the corresponding disallowance addressed on merits cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether cash payments made by a liquor contractor to its supplier attracted disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The cash-payment tabulation established that the payments exceeded the applicable daily threshold. However, section 40A(3) is intended to curb circulation of unaccounted money and not to disallow genuine business payments. The liquor trade operated by the assessee predominantly involved an unorganised cash-based business environment, and the cash payments to the supplier were satisfactorily explained in that factual setting.

Conclusion: The cash payments were treated as genuine and explained; the disallowance under section 40A(3) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether service tax was payable where receipts attributed to newspaper sales were excluded and the remaining receipts were within the applicable threshold exemption.

Analysis: The receipts reflected in Form 26AS included substantial amounts from sale of newspapers. Sale of newspapers constituted a sale transaction and did not form part of taxable service receipts. After excluding those sale receipts, the value of receipts for each relevant period remained below Rs. 10 lakhs, the applicable threshold limit for service-tax liability.

Conclusion: No service-tax liability arose on the remaining receipts; consequently, no penalty was imposable.

Issues: Whether service tax under the reverse charge mechanism was payable on royalty for mining leases executed before 01.04.2016 during the negative list regime.

Analysis: All relevant mining lease deeds had been executed before 01.04.2016, including the lease deed executed on 16.10.2015. Applying the Tribunal's earlier decisions on mining royalty, the demand for the subsequent period could not be sustained merely because royalty became payable during that period.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable under the reverse charge mechanism on the mining royalty in question; the demand and consequential penalty were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised to interfere with an input tax credit adjudication on allegations of absence of notice under Section 73(1), defects in Form GST DRC-07, violation of Section 75, and denial of hearing, despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires service of a show-cause notice, while Rule 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires an electronic summary in Form GST DRC-01; the summary does not replace the statutory notice. The admitted receipt of a demand-cum-show-cause notice identifying the alleged wrongful input tax credit precluded a finding of total absence of notice or jurisdictional error. Form GST DRC-07 under Rule 142(5) is only a summary of the adjudication order; any asserted mismatch with the notice or order, the alleged breach of Section 75(7), and compliance with the hearing requirement under Section 75(4) require scrutiny of the relevant records in appellate proceedings. The alleged entitlement to input tax credit also involved disputed questions of fact concerning the genuineness of transactions and satisfaction of statutory conditions. The doctrine of alternative remedy ordinarily governs fiscal disputes, and the pleaded facts did not establish a recognised exception based on want of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Exercise of writ jurisdiction was not warranted; the remaining challenges concerning demand, procedure, and input tax credit entitlement may be pursued before the statutory appellate forum.

Issues: Whether the absence of concealment of beneficial ownership or a future benefit to a third party excluded the transactions from Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Analysis: Section 2(9)(A) requires that consideration be provided by the beneficial owner and that the property be held in the name of a benamidar for the immediate or future benefit of that beneficial owner. It does not require concealment of the beneficial owner, benefit to a third party, or the use of illegitimate funds. Legitimate funds routed through banking channels may also constitute a benami transaction where the statutory ingredients are fulfilled. The illustrative factors for determining a benami transaction do not override the specific requirements of the applicable statutory clause. The admitted transfer of demonetized currency to benamidars, its deposit and routing through entity bank accounts, and its return in acceptable currency for the applicants' benefit supported the original finding.

Conclusion: The absence of concealment or benefit to a third party did not take the transactions outside Section 2(9)(A), and no error apparent on the face of the record was established to justify review.

Issues: Whether the rejection of a transitional Form 10A application deprived the trust of its pre-existing registration under Section 12AA for Assessment Year 2020-21 and justified denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

Analysis: The registration granted under Section 12AA in 2007 continued unless lawfully cancelled or withdrawn. Rejection of the subsequent Form 10A application was distinct from cancellation of the existing registration and did not extinguish it. The Finance Act, 2020 version of Section 12AB was retrospectively omitted through TOLA from 01.06.2020, and the fresh Section 12AB regime operated from 01.04.2021. Section 12A(2) preserved continuity of exemption in the migration regime. A subsisting registration could not be disregarded by the Assessing Officer, particularly where exemption had been consistently allowed in earlier years on identical facts and no substantive breach of charitable conditions was found.

Conclusion: The original Section 12AA registration remained effective for Assessment Year 2020-21, and rejection of the transitional application did not create a registration gap. Denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 and taxation of the surplus were unsustainable; the exemption is to be granted subject to verification of other statutory conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether LFC reimbursements made while a binding interim direction barred tax deduction at source could render the deductor an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A); (ii) Whether sufficient cause existed under section 249(3) to condone delays in eleven penalty appeals; and (iii) Whether penalties under section 271C could survive despite reasonable cause under section 273B.

Issue (i): Whether LFC reimbursements made while a binding interim direction barred tax deduction at source could render the deductor an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).

Analysis: LFC involving a foreign leg did not qualify for exemption under section 10(5), and tax was ordinarily deductible under section 192. However, the subsisting interim direction expressly required that the reimbursement not be treated as income so as to enable deduction of tax at source, while placing any eventual tax liability upon the employees. Section 201(1) requires a failure to perform an enforceable obligation to deduct tax. During the relevant previous years, the deductor was judicially restrained from making such deduction, and no payment-specific material established that the interim protection had been modified, vacated, or was inoperative. A later declaration of the substantive taxability of the reimbursement could not retrospectively convert compliance with the binding direction into a withholding default.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: it could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and the consequential interest under section 201(1A) could not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether sufficient cause existed under section 249(3) to condone delays in eleven penalty appeals.

Analysis: The delays arose from institutional approval requirements, transfer or retirement of officials, unavailability of portal credentials, and the need to reset access through the e-filing system. The explanation was consistent across the appeals, with no material showing deliberate delay, mala fides, advantage from delay, or specific prejudice to the Revenue. In view of the common issues and the fact that the penalties rested on demands no longer sustainable, substantial justice warranted admission of the delayed appeals.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: sufficient cause was established and the delays in all eleven penalty appeals were condoned.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under section 271C could survive despite reasonable cause under section 273B.

Analysis: Section 271C is subject to section 273B. The non-deduction did not arise from administrative convenience, ignorance, or an unsupported interpretation of law; it followed an express and operative judicial direction. Compliance with that direction was bona fide and compelled, as deduction contrary to it could entail disobedience of the judicial order. Further, the alleged failure to deduct tax did not survive after the finding that no enforceable withholding obligation was breached during the protected period.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: compliance with the interim direction constituted reasonable cause under section 273B, and the penalties under section 271C were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The binding interim direction insulated the deductor from withholding-default consequences for the relevant payments without affecting the substantive tax liability of the employees; the related penalty exactions were consequently impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: A deductor expressly restrained by a binding judicial direction from treating a payment as income for tax deduction at source cannot be deemed in default under section 201(1) for complying with that direction, notwithstanding a later declaration of the payment's substantive taxability.

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte quantum assessment required restoration for fresh adjudication owing to absence of an effective opportunity of hearing; and (ii) Whether non-compliance with one notice under section 143(2) and four successive notices under section 142(1) warranted separate penalties for every notice under section 272A(1)(d).

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte quantum assessment required restoration for fresh adjudication owing to absence of an effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Section 250(6) requires an appellate order to state the points for determination, the decision and reasons. The hearing notices in the first appeal were sent to an email address different from that furnished in the appeal form. The assessment had also been completed ex parte, and relevant purchase-related material was stated to be available for production. Applying the principles of natural justice, a fresh adjudication would not prejudice the Revenue if effective opportunity were afforded.

Conclusion: The quantum matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with one notice under section 143(2) and four successive notices under section 142(1) warranted separate penalties for every notice under section 272A(1)(d).

Analysis: Section 272A(1)(d) separately covers failure to comply with notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1). Non-compliance with the notice under section 143(2) constituted a distinct default. However, successive notices under section 142(1), issued for examination of similar issues, did not multiply the default; they constituted a single continuing default. The provision is directed at securing compliance rather than multiplying penal consequences for the same lapse.

Conclusion: Penalty of Rs. 10,000 for non-compliance with the notice under section 143(2) and Rs. 10,000 for non-compliance with the first notice under section 142(1) is sustained; the remaining penalty of Rs. 30,000 is deleted, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment requires a fresh determination on merits, while the penalty liability stands confined to two distinct defaults.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive notices under section 142(1) concerning the same subject matter give rise to a single default for penalty purposes, whereas failure to comply with a notice under section 143(2) and the first notice under section 142(1) constitutes distinct defaults.

Issues: Whether hiring private buses to a State transport undertaking under the agreements amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods taxable as a deemed sale under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: A transfer of the right to use goods requires transfer of possession and effective control to the user. The agreements required the bus owners to operate and maintain the buses, provide drivers, bear statutory and accident-related liabilities, and retain physical control and responsibility for the vehicles. The undertaking's power to fix routes and timings did not transfer control or exclusive possession of the buses. The arrangement was consequently a licence or service arrangement, not a transfer of the right to use goods.

Conclusion: The bus-hiring transactions were not deemed sales and were not liable to tax under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Issues: Whether an amendment effective from 15.06.2026 could be invoked to deny consideration of provisional release for imports covered by bills of lading dated before its commencement.

Analysis: The bills of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of an express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and cannot govern such earlier imports. No distinguishing feature justified departure from the earlier directions concerning provisional release of similar goods.

Conclusion: The amendment was inapplicable to the subject imports and could not be relied upon to refuse consideration of provisional release; the request is required to be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, with release following compliance with the conditions lawfully imposed.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification that came into force after the dates of the bills of lading could be relied upon to refuse consideration of provisional release of imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits provisional release subject to conditions imposed in accordance with law. An amendment to a statutory notification, absent an express provision for retrospective operation, operates prospectively. The relevant bills of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment; therefore, that amendment could not govern the imports. The established approach concerning provisional release of similar goods applied, no distinguishing feature having been shown.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be invoked to refuse consideration of the request for provisional release. The request must be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the goods must be provisionally released upon compliance with the conditions lawfully imposed.