Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was time-barred and whether a clerical rectification of the original order restarted the appellate limitation period; (ii) Whether the Section 9 application was time-barred, including whether the balance confirmations constituted valid acknowledgments extending limitation; (iii) Whether a pre-existing dispute barred initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was time-barred and whether a clerical rectification of the original order restarted the appellate limitation period.

Analysis: Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permits filing within 30 days, with condonation limited to a further 15 days. Limitation runs from pronouncement of the original order. The subsequent order corrected only the date of pronouncement and made no substantive alteration to the findings; hence it did not create a fresh limitation period. Section 60(6) applies to suits and applications by or against a corporate debtor during moratorium and does not extend the period for an appeal under Section 61. Administrative delay in authorising the appeal could not enlarge the statutory outer limit.

Conclusion: The appeal was barred by limitation; the clerical rectification did not restart limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Section 9 application was time-barred, including whether the balance confirmations constituted valid acknowledgments extending limitation.

Analysis: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a Section 9 application, and limitation runs for three years from the date of default. The admitted default date was 07.03.2015, whereas the application was filed on 23.09.2021. A valid acknowledgment under Section 18 must be written, proved, unequivocal, and made before expiry of the applicable limitation period. The balance confirmations were unproved and reflected materially inconsistent outstanding amounts; together with the creditor's own inconsistent credit-balance communication, they did not establish an unequivocal acknowledgment of an ascertained liability.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was time-barred and was not saved by a valid acknowledgment of liability.

Issue (iii): Whether a pre-existing dispute barred initiation of insolvency proceedings under Section 9.

Analysis: Correspondence predating the demand notice recorded objections concerning account reconciliation, set-offs and the correctness of ledger figures. These communications disclosed a genuine and continuing dispute concerning the debt claimed, rather than a spurious, hypothetical or illusory defence. The shifting amounts in the balance confirmations reinforced that the debt was not crystallized.

Conclusion: A genuine pre-existing dispute existed, independently rendering the Section 9 application unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The operational creditor could not invoke the insolvency process for a stale and disputed claim, and the refusal to commence CIRP remained legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A clerical rectification that does not substantively modify an insolvency order does not reset appellate limitation, and a Section 9 application cannot proceed where the claim is time-barred or subject to a genuine pre-existing dispute.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the excise-duty demand where the relevant facts and records had been made available during audit.

Analysis: The demand covered April 2011 to November 2013, while the audit had issued a deficiency memo on 10.03.2014 based on the assessee's records. The show-cause notice was issued only on 13.04.2016 by invoking the extended period. Availability of the material records to audit did not establish suppression or any conduct justifying invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the demand raised by its invocation was time-barred and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the additional input tax credit benefit was fully passed on to eligible homebuyers; (ii) whether free additional construction work could substitute commensurate reduction in prices; (iii) whether interest was payable on the unpassed benefit; and (iv) whether penalty was attracted for the contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the additional input tax credit benefit was fully passed on to eligible homebuyers.

Analysis: Section 171(1) requires the benefit of additional input tax credit to reach each recipient through a commensurate reduction in price. The supplementary verification accepted that the benefit had been passed to four homebuyers, but determined a remaining differential amount of Rs. 99,435 for two homebuyers. The revised computation and supporting material disclosed no factual or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The Respondent failed to pass on Rs. 99,435 of the additional input tax credit benefit to the concerned homebuyers, contrary to Section 171(1), in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether free additional construction work could substitute commensurate reduction in prices.

Analysis: The statutory mode of passing on tax or input tax credit benefit is commensurate reduction in price. An equivalent commercial advantage, including free additional construction work, does not fulfil that prescribed mode even where its asserted value exceeds the differential benefit.

Conclusion: Free additional construction work is not valid compliance with the obligation to pass on input tax credit benefit through commensurate reduction in prices, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on the unpassed benefit.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) mandates interest where an amount has not been passed on by commensurate reduction in prices. The affected recipients were deprived of the monetary benefit from the dates on which the higher amounts were collected.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable on the differential profiteered amount from collection of the higher amount until actual payment, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty was attracted for the contravention.

Analysis: The contravention continued after Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020. The statutory proviso preserves the consequence that no penalty is leviable if the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days of the order.

Conclusion: The Respondent is liable to penalty under Section 171(3A), in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The remaining input tax credit benefit must be passed to the affected recipients with statutory interest, and the contravention attracts the applicable anti-profiteering penalty regime.

Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of additional input tax credit under Section 171 must be transmitted to each recipient by commensurate reduction in price and cannot be replaced by in-kind or other commercial benefits.

Issues: (i) Whether the Inland Container Depot is a public place under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; (ii) Whether a Reach Stacker used within the Inland Container Depot is a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether the Inland Container Depot is a public place under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: A public place requires a right of access vested in the public. The Inland Container Depot is a customs bonded area where ingress and egress are controlled and access is confined to duly authorised persons. Its specially designed internal roads, used for movement of heavy machinery and containers, are not places to which members of the public can claim entry as of right.

Conclusion: The Inland Container Depot and its internal roads are not a public place under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This conclusion is against the claimant.

Issue (ii): Whether a Reach Stacker used within the Inland Container Depot is a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Analysis: The requirement that a mechanically propelled vehicle be adapted for use upon roads entails its suitability and dominant utility for ordinary roads. The Reach Stacker substantially exceeds prescribed road-weight limits, is transported in dismantled form, lacks ordinary road-safety features, and operates on specially reinforced internal roads for limited container-handling functions. Though wheeled and mechanically propelled, it is a special-purpose vehicle adapted only for use in enclosed premises and falls within the statutory exclusion. Its non-registration is consistent with this classification, since registration is required only for a motor vehicle.

Conclusion: A Reach Stacker of this nature is excluded from the definition of motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This conclusion is in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be maintained in respect of the accident involving the Reach Stacker within the restricted Inland Container Depot; the clarification preserves claims involving regular road-going vehicles entering that area.

Ratio Decidendi: A special-purpose mechanically propelled vehicle whose dominant use is confined to enclosed premises and which is not suitable for ordinary public roads is excluded from the statutory definition of a motor vehicle, notwithstanding its wheels and mechanical propulsion.

Issues: Whether a person required to furnish information in an ongoing SFIO investigation has an enforceable right at the preliminary stage to obtain the Central Government's investigation orders and the material underlying those orders.

Analysis: The notice under Section 217 disclosed that the information was sought in connection with an investigation into identified companies and because of the petitioner's financial transactions with them, and specified the categories of records required. The investigation was ongoing, involved multiple entities, and the investigation orders and underlying material contained sensitive information. Disclosure at that stage could prejudice the wider investigation and connected proceedings. No prejudicial action against the petitioner had yet reached a stage warranting disclosure or invocation of remedies based on natural justice.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to disclosure of the investigation orders or underlying material at the preliminary stage; it may pursue remedies available in law if prejudicial action is taken subsequently.

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of central excise duty by invocation of the extended limitation period was sustainable; (ii) Whether Nicotine Sulphate was classifiable under CTH 24039990 or CTH 29399900; (iii) Whether the manufacturer and purchaser were related parties for valuation of the goods supplied to the purchaser.

Issue (i): Whether recovery of central excise duty by invocation of the extended limitation period was sustainable.

Analysis: The manufacturer had informed the department of manufacture and classification of Nicotine Sulphate under Chapter 29 and had consistently disclosed the disputed classification in monthly ER-1 returns. The disclosed material did not support an allegation of suppression or misstatement necessary to invoke the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand for June 2015 to June 2017 issued by invoking the extended limitation period was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Nicotine Sulphate was classifiable under CTH 24039990 or CTH 29399900.

Analysis: The manufacturing process showed that the product was a vegetable alkaloid. Heading 29.39 covers alkaloids and their derivatives, and the Chapter 29 restriction concerning separately chemically defined compounds did not exclude this product because alkaloids are an identified exception under the HSN general notes. The report relied on by Revenue concerned a sample drawn from a third-party premises without the manufacturer's representative, tested more than a year after drawal contrary to the prescribed sampling standard, and included a classification opinion beyond the chemical examiner's analytical role. Factory samples tested subsequently described the product as an aqueous solution of Nicotine Sulphate and an organic chemical.

Conclusion: Nicotine Sulphate was correctly classifiable under CTH 29399900 and not under CTH 24039990; the consequential duty, interest and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the manufacturer and purchaser were related parties for valuation of the goods supplied to the purchaser.

Analysis: The allegation of related-party status rested on one individual being a partner of the manufacturer and managing director of the purchaser. No supporting evidence established that the entities satisfied the statutory requirements of related persons. The valuation demand based on 110% of cost of production consequently lacked foundation.

Conclusion: The entities were not established to be related parties; the differential duty, interest and penalty on this count were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The extended-period demand and the related-party valuation demand fail, while the declared Chapter 29 classification of Nicotine Sulphate prevails.

Ratio Decidendi: A disclosed tariff classification cannot attract the extended limitation period absent suppression, and Nicotine Sulphate, as a vegetable alkaloid derivative, falls under the alkaloid heading notwithstanding the general requirement of separate chemical definition in Chapter 29.

Issues: (i) Whether acquittal in proceedings for dishonour of cheque bars the civil suit through issue estoppel or res judicata; (ii) Whether the plaintiff proved voluntary execution and delivery of the cheque so as to establish the transaction and attract statutory presumptions.

Issue (i): Whether acquittal in proceedings for dishonour of cheque bars the civil suit through issue estoppel or res judicata.

Analysis: Findings in criminal proceedings were not relevant or binding in the civil suit. Criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the civil claim is determined on a preponderance of probabilities. An acquittal may only establish failure to prove criminal guilt and does not establish that debt or civil liability has been disproved. The civil court must independently assess the evidence, even where the cheque, witnesses and material overlap.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not create issue estoppel or res judicata and did not bar the civil suit; this issue was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved voluntary execution and delivery of the cheque so as to establish the transaction and attract statutory presumptions.

Analysis: Proof that the signature on a cheque belongs to the defendant is distinct from proof that the cheque was voluntarily executed and delivered as an operative instrument. Since execution was specifically denied, the plaintiff had the initial burden to establish voluntary execution before relying on statutory presumptions. The evidence did not satisfactorily prove the circumstances of delivery or execution: the material witness's account concerning payment, completion and delivery of the cheque was materially inconsistent. The trial court's inferences concerning the alleged borrowing were founded on surmise rather than evidence.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove voluntary execution and delivery of the cheque or the alleged transaction; consequently, the statutory presumptions did not arise. This issue was in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The civil money claim founded on the cheque could not be sustained because its execution and the underlying transaction were not established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where execution of a cheque is specifically denied, proof of the drawer's signature alone does not invoke presumptions of consideration and liability; the claimant must first prove voluntary execution and delivery of the cheque as an operative instrument.

Issues: Whether expenditure attributable to exempt income, including interest voluntarily disallowed under the regular provisions, was required to be added to book profit.

Analysis: Section 115JB and Explanation 1, clause (f), provided the framework for the proposed book profit adjustments. The Court applied its earlier decision addressing the same questions.

Conclusion: The challenged adjustments, including the voluntary interest disallowance, were not required in this case. No substantial question of law arose.

Issues: Whether an interim attachment recorded pursuant to arbitral proceedings can prevail over the statutory priority of a secured creditor holding a prior registered mortgage.

Analysis: Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 contains a non obstante clause conferring priority upon a secured creditor over other debts and charges. A prior registered mortgage and enforcement of the secured asset under the statutory regime prevail over an interim attachment obtained by another creditor in arbitral proceedings. Retaining such attachment in the encumbrance record would improperly obstruct enforcement and create a cloud over title, while the attaching creditor may seek any surplus remaining after satisfaction of the secured debt.

Conclusion: The secured creditor's statutory priority prevails over the interim arbitral attachment; the attachment entry cannot impede enforcement of the mortgaged property.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite an alternative appellate remedy. (ii) Whether rejection of provisional release and continued detention of the seized areca nuts were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite an alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis: The rule requiring exhaustion of an alternative remedy is one of policy, convenience and discretion, and does not absolutely bar judicial review under Article 226. The failure to consider the material ARDF test report amounted to a defect in the decision-making process and justified exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the available appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of provisional release and continued detention of the seized areca nuts were sustainable.

Analysis: The ARDF report, obtained by Customs, recorded that the seized goods resembled Indian areca nuts and were of good quality. The impugned decision relied only on the food laboratory report concerning fitness for human consumption and did not address the ARDF report bearing on the foundational basis of seizure. The undertaking that the goods would not be used for human consumption addressed the concern arising from the food laboratory report.

Conclusion: The rejection of provisional release and continued detention were unsustainable; the seized goods were required to be provisionally released under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Final Conclusion: Material expert evidence relevant to the origin and basis of seizure could not be disregarded, and provisional release was warranted through the statutory mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: An alternative remedy does not bar writ review where a customs decision is vitiated by failure to consider material evidence bearing on the foundational basis for seizure and provisional release.

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority may dismiss an income-tax appeal for non-prosecution without determining the grounds on merits as required by Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 250 requires the first appellate authority to formulate points for determination and decide them with reasons. A dismissal founded solely on the assessee's absence or failure to file written submissions, including in ex parte adjudication, does not satisfy that statutory duty. The prior direction requiring a merits-based reconsideration made adherence to those requirements imperative.

Conclusion: The appellate order, lacking points for determination and reasons on the merits, was legally unsustainable; the appeal was required to be reconsidered de novo on merits after a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The first appellate authority must decide an income-tax appeal on merits by recording points for determination and reasons, and cannot reject it solely for non-prosecution.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could restore the entire dropped duty demand when the Revenue's appeal challenged only the duty relating to cement supplied to an EOU.

Analysis: The Revenue's grounds and the appellate order confined the challenge to the EOU-clearance component. The amount originally dropped covered separate categories of supplies, whereas the Revenue's appeal addressed only EOU supplies. Of the 299.70 MT supplied to the EOU, duty had already been paid on 125.80 MT, leaving 173.90 MT. Cement was not eligible for the claimed exemption under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. dated 31.03.2003, and the residual duty liability consequently related only to the balance EOU quantity.

Conclusion: Recovery is confined to duty on 173.90 MT of cement cleared to the EOU, after adjustment of duty paid on 125.80 MT, together with interest; the penalty is set aside.

Issues: Whether GST paid on the balance works was payable separately where the accepted Bill of Quantities specified rates "without taxes".

Analysis: Clause 44(b) of the PWD Manual contemplated quoted rates inclusive of taxes. However, the Bill of Quantities supplied and acted upon for the accepted tender expressly required rates without taxes; therefore, the quoted amount could not be treated as tax-inclusive. Further, the Bill of Quantities contemplated taxes under the sales-tax regime, whereas the claimed liability arose under the GST regime. The original tender pre-dated GST and the works were a continuation of works abandoned by the earlier contractor, so inclusion of GST in the quoted amount was not within the parties' contemplation.

Conclusion: GST actually paid on the works is separately reimbursable upon proof through the relevant GST returns.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court's direction requiring the accused to immediately vacate the residential quarters, in implementation of the Supreme Court's order, was liable to be interfered with while the review petition against that Supreme Court order remained pending.

Analysis: Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes the Supreme Court's declared law and unambiguous directions binding on all courts. The Supreme Court had expressly treated the undertaking as binding upon all accused and directed immediate delivery of vacant possession. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be used to sit in appeal over, reinterpret, or dilute that direction. The pendency of a review petition does not suspend the operative force of the Supreme Court's judgment unless the Supreme Court itself stays, modifies, or suspends it. The Trial Court was consequently bound to implement the direction and exercised no independent discretion beyond it.

Conclusion: The direction to vacate the quarters was valid and required no interference; the issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether service tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts could be demanded from an Indian importer under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: The appellate order deleting the demand followed binding rulings which held that, in CIF contracts, the overseas seller is the recipient of the sea-transportation service and the Indian importer is neither the service provider nor the service recipient. In the absence of any stay of those rulings, judicial discipline required their application. Subsequent decisions, including dismissal of the Revenue's challenge in a similar matter, supported the same position.

Conclusion: Service tax on ocean freight under reverse charge cannot be demanded from the Indian importer in a CIF contract; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether electronic records, supplier invoices and other investigation material were admissible to establish undervaluation; (ii) Whether the declared value could be rejected and differential duty and penalties sustained under the Customs Valuation framework; (iii) Whether differential duty of separate IEC-holding importers could be recovered from the proprietor of one entity as a proxy importer; (iv) Whether confiscation and redemption fine could be imposed when the imported goods were unavailable.

Issue (i): Whether electronic records, supplier invoices and other investigation material were admissible to establish undervaluation.

Analysis: Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires the prescribed certificate and procedural safeguards for computer printouts and electronic records. The electronic devices were seized without a contemporaneous record of proceedings; data was examined after a delay, without recording a hash value or furnishing a certification establishing its production, origin and authenticity. The supplier invoices were unsigned and unattested copies, and their origin, accuracy and authenticity remained unproved. Unauthenticated electronic material and unverified invoice copies could not sustain a customs demand merely on a preponderance-of-probabilities standard.

Conclusion: The electronic material and unverified supplier invoices were inadmissible for proving undervaluation, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared value could be rejected and differential duty and penalties sustained under the Customs Valuation framework.

Analysis: Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 requires a reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value and compliance with the prescribed process before rejection of transaction value. The investigation proceeded on intelligence and material obtained during investigation, without prior substantiated grounds for rejecting declared values. No effort was made to ascertain values of contemporaneous imports, despite the goods being general in nature. In the absence of valid rejection of declared value and admissible evidence of undervaluation, redetermination of value, differential duty and penal liability lacked legal basis.

Conclusion: The differential-duty demands and penalties based on alleged undervaluation were unsustainable, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (iii): Whether differential duty of separate IEC-holding importers could be recovered from the proprietor of one entity as a proxy importer.

Analysis: Each importing concern held a separate Import Export Code, VAT registration and bank account, and filed its own bills of entry. The person filing the bill of entry is the importer liable for duty, notwithstanding an allegation that such person acted as a front for another. Recovery from the proprietor of one concern of the duty attributed to other legally distinct importing entities was therefore not sustainable under Sections 28(4) and 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: Differential duty of the other importers could not be recovered from the proprietor of one importing entity as a proxy importer, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (iv): Whether confiscation and redemption fine could be imposed when the imported goods were unavailable.

Analysis: Redemption fine is not sustainable where the goods are unavailable for confiscation. This defect independently invalidated the confiscation and redemption-fine component of the impugned orders.

Conclusion: Confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable because the goods were not available for confiscation, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The valuation-based demands, interest, penalties, confiscation and redemption-fine consequences lacked a sustainable evidentiary and statutory foundation.

Issues: Whether compensation received by BSNL employees under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 constitutes retrenchment compensation and a capital receipt exempt from tax.

Analysis: The identical issue had consistently been decided in favour of BSNL employees in coordinate decisions. Applying the same reasoning, the compensation paid under the scheme was treated in substance as retrenchment compensation, rather than voluntary-retirement compensation taxable beyond the separate statutory exemption.

Conclusion: The BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 compensation is retrenchment compensation, constitutes a capital receipt, and is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The finding is in favour of the assessees.

Issues: Whether an income-tax attachment predating registration of the security interest with CERSAI prevails over the secured creditor's statutory priority.

Analysis: Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 accords priority to a secured creditor's dues over government revenues, taxes and cesses. An earlier attachment can defeat that priority only if it was validly enforced and publicly proclaimed in the manner required by law. The revenue authorities did not establish compliance with the requisite proclamation steps or registration of their claim or attachment with CERSAI.

Conclusion: The secured creditor's dues have priority over the income-tax dues; the unproclaimed attachment and consequential encumbrance cannot prevail and are liable to be removed.

Issues: Whether an auction purchaser entering possession pursuant to a secured creditor's statutory sale could be treated as being in unauthorised occupation of public premises and evicted through summary proceedings merely because leasehold rights had not been formally transferred and prior dues remained disputed.

Analysis: Unauthorised occupation under Section 2(g) requires occupation without authority or continuance after the authority permitting occupation has expired or been duly determined. Possession obtained under a sale certificate issued following a statutory auction by a secured creditor is traceable to that auction and cannot be equated with trespass or clandestine occupation. Disputes concerning formal transfer of leasehold rights and liability for dues of the former lessee do not, by themselves, establish unauthorised occupation for invoking the summary eviction mechanism. Any recoverable arrears must be pursued against the person legally liable.

Conclusion: The auction purchaser could not be evicted under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 solely because of unresolved lease-transfer formalities or disputed prior dues; the appellate interference with the eviction order was legally justified.