Issues: Whether compensation received under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 on account of delay or failure in performance was taxable as income from other sources or assessable as long-term capital gains.

Analysis: The compensation was held to be linked to the assessee's capital asset and the rights arising from the booking and payments made over the years. Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 contemplates compensation computed with reference to the prescribed interest rate, and section 2(47)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treats extinguishment of rights in relation to a capital asset as a transfer. On these facts, the receipt was not treated as a mere interest-like amount chargeable under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The compensation was rightly assessed as long-term capital gains and not as income from other sources.

Issues: Whether registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be denied to a newly formed trust on the ground that its activities had not commenced and that its existing activity was confined to members and reflected mutuality rather than charity.

Analysis: For registration, the Commissioner must satisfy himself about the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities, and in the case of a new trust the proposed activities are relevant. Mere non-commencement of full-fledged charitable operations is not, by itself, a ground to treat the activities as non-genuine or as a specified violation, where the objects are charitable and the proposed line of activity is consistent with those objects. The trust deed showed charitable objects, including medical relief, education, and public awareness, and the conduct of a conference by itself did not justify a conclusion that the trust existed only for mutual benefit of members. The reasons recorded by the Commissioner did not establish that the trust had undertaken activities contrary to its objects or any specified violation under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii).

Conclusion: The denial of registration was not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12AB.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made under section 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend required fresh adjudication in view of additional evidence showing a commercial arrangement linked to the company's overdraft facility; (ii) Whether the addition under section 68 in respect of cash deposits required reconsideration on the assessee's explanation of sale proceeds and marriage gifts; (iii) Whether the disallowance under section 57 required fresh examination on the claimed nexus between the expenditure and income from other sources.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made under section 2(22)(e) on account of deemed dividend required fresh adjudication in view of additional evidence showing a commercial arrangement linked to the company's overdraft facility.

Analysis: The additional evidence, including the bank sanction letter, board resolution, loan account statements, balance sheets, and no dues certificate, was found to have direct bearing on the true character of the advance. The material was not merely collateral but went to the root of whether the payment was a gratuitous shareholder benefit or a commercial advance linked to business exigency. Since these documents had not been examined by the lower authorities and required factual verification, the matter was considered fit for remand.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after considering the additional evidence and granting due opportunity to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition under section 68 in respect of cash deposits required reconsideration on the assessee's explanation of sale proceeds and marriage gifts.

Analysis: The explanation regarding land sale proceeds and marriage gifts was rejected by the lower authorities mainly on the basis of delay in deposit and lack of supporting proof. Since the assessee claimed that sale agreements had been furnished and the receipts had been taxed earlier, and because the issue involved factual verification of source, timing, custody, and genuineness of the deposits, the matter was treated as fit for fresh examination.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration on the basis of further evidence and a fresh enquiry.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under section 57 required fresh examination on the claimed nexus between the expenditure and income from other sources.

Analysis: The lower authorities had disallowed the claim on the ground that the borrowing from the assessee's father and the related interest and professional fees lacked real nexus with earning income from other sources. As the assessment itself was being restored and further material might be available to show the connection between the expenditure and the income, the issue was also considered appropriate for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The disallowance was set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The entire assessment on the disputed issues was set aside and sent back for fresh consideration after admission and verification of the additional evidence, with the appeal treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where additional evidence goes to the root of the dispute and has not been tested by the lower authorities, the proper course is to admit it and remand the matter for de novo adjudication after factual verification and due opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to the covered international transactions was to be sustained or remanded in view of the Advance Pricing Agreement. (ii) Whether the adjustment to book profit under section 115JB and the claim of MAT credit required reconsideration. (iii) Whether the arithmetical error in the computation of interest and fee payable required correction. (iv) Whether the interest under section 234B required recomputation after giving effect to the revised transfer pricing position.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to the covered international transactions was to be sustained or remanded in view of the Advance Pricing Agreement.

Analysis: The covered transactions were governed by an Advance Pricing Agreement applicable to the relevant assessment year. The agreement fixed the benchmark operating profit margin for the covered transactions and required the pricing outcome to be worked out in accordance with the agreement and the applicable statutory provisions. Since the assessment order had proceeded without giving effect to the agreement, the transfer pricing matter called for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer after examining the APA terms and recomputing the arm's length price, if necessary.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was remanded to the Assessing Officer and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjustment to book profit under section 115JB and the claim of MAT credit required reconsideration.

Analysis: The assessment record did not contain any discussion supporting the disputed book profit adjustment, and the adjustment also did not emerge from the DRP directions or the final assessment order in a reasoned manner. The issue therefore required fresh examination after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing and considering the book profit position in accordance with law, along with the consequential MAT credit aspect.

Conclusion: The issue concerning book profit and MAT credit was remanded to the Assessing Officer and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the arithmetical error in the computation of interest and fee payable required correction.

Analysis: The computation sheet reflected an interest and fee figure that was disputed as arithmetically incorrect. The claim also depended on the extended due date for filing the return, which had to be verified while recomputing the amount payable in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recomputation and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the interest under section 234B required recomputation after giving effect to the revised transfer pricing position.

Analysis: The charging of interest under section 234B is mandatory, but the quantum must be verified after giving effect to the revised income and transfer pricing adjustments. The interest was therefore required to be recomputed after the arm's length price was worked out in accordance with the APA-based reconsideration.

Conclusion: The interest under section 234B was directed to be verified and recomputed in accordance with the revised transfer pricing exercise.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the disputed issues were sent back for fresh adjudication or recomputation, and the remaining grounds were not pressed or were not adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a covered international transaction is governed by an applicable Advance Pricing Agreement, the arm's length price must be determined consistently with that agreement, and consequential tax computations must be revisited on that basis.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within the stipulated time along with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application, leaving the appellate authority to consider the matter in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order confirming the GST demand and denying transitional input tax credit required interference and remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The dispute concerned transitional input tax credit claimed in respect of stock available on 30.06.2017 under Section 140 of the GST regime. The Court noted that the assessee had asserted prior replies and the availability of stock, but the adjudicating authority had not undertaken the necessary verification, including comparison with the relevant return data and supporting material. In the absence of such exercise, the demand confirmation could not be sustained as a final adjudication on merits. The Court therefore directed de novo consideration, with the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, file a reply with documents, and be granted a personal hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to compliance with the directed pre-deposit and filing of reply and documents.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition resulted in a conditional remand for reconsideration of the GST demand and transitional credit claim, with consequential interim attachment relief linked to compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a GST demand involving transitional credit is confirmed without proper verification of stock, replies, and supporting return data, the adjudication is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh decision after due hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made as unexplained money under section 69A was sustainable where the credits in the bank account were recorded in the books and supported by documentary evidence; (ii) Whether the reassessment initiated under section 147 read with section 148 was valid when the foundational information regarding the bank accounts and credits was found to be factually incorrect.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made as unexplained money under section 69A was sustainable where the credits in the bank account were recorded in the books and supported by documentary evidence.

Analysis: The assessee furnished books of account, bank statements, confirmations, PAN details, income-tax returns and other supporting material showing that the credits represented capital contributions, unsecured loans and advances from related concerns and family members. The essential statutory conditions for invoking section 69A require the assessee to be found owner of money not recorded in the books and to fail in offering a satisfactory explanation. On the facts found, the credits were recorded and explained, and no adverse material was brought to dislodge the explanation.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not sustainable and the deletion of the addition was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment initiated under section 147 read with section 148 was valid when the foundational information regarding the bank accounts and credits was found to be factually incorrect.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on information that the assessee maintained three bank accounts with substantial non-cash credits. The factual record accepted at the appellate stage showed that the assessee operated only one relevant bank account and that the amounts and account particulars forming the basis of reopening were incorrect. Since reassessment must rest on specific and correct information relating to the assessee, an initiation based on a materially erroneous factual foundation cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and notice under section 148 were held to be invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to deletion of the addition failed, and the assessee's challenge to the reopening succeeded, resulting in complete relief to the assessee on the issues decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 69A applies only where unexplained money is found outside the books and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation, while reassessment under sections 147 and 148 cannot rest on materially incorrect foundational information.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 41(1) for alleged cessation of liability was sustainable when the assessee had furnished ledger accounts, PAN, addresses and other supporting records, and whether the appellate authority could sustain the addition without proper verification under its co-terminus powers.

Analysis: The assessee had produced creditor-wise details, including ledger accounts, identity particulars, PAN and addresses, and the Revenue did not dispute the genuineness of those materials. The only basis for the addition was non-furnishing of confirmations from the creditors. Once primary evidence of the existence of liability was on record, further inquiry was required before invoking section 41(1). The record also did not show any proper examination of the assessee's explanation that the balances remained outstanding due to disputes. The appellate authority was expected to verify the material and record reasons in accordance with its statutory duty, but the addition was sustained without such examination.

Conclusion: The addition under section 41(1) was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted, resulting in success for the assessee.

Issues: Whether, in a limited scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer could make an addition on account of purchase of immovable property when the scrutiny was confined to large cash deposits and transfer of property by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny only on specified issues. The recorded reason relating to transfer of property referred to sale or transfer transactions, not purchase or acquisition of property. Under the governing CBDT circular, the Assessing Officer could not enlarge the scope of limited scrutiny and travel into an unconnected issue without converting the case into complete scrutiny through proper authorisation. The impugned addition arose from purchase of immovable property and therefore lay outside the permitted scope of enquiry. In the absence of any material showing valid conversion to complete scrutiny, the addition was held to be without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The addition for purchase of immovable property was not sustainable in a limited scrutiny assessment and was deleted.

Issues: Whether rejection and cancellation of registration under section 12AB(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground of specified violation was justified when the trust's beneficiaries were confined to a defined community and its activities were claimed to be charitable.

Analysis: The trust had been registered under section 12A and the impugned action proceeded on the view that the dominant benefit was to a particular community and that the utilisation pattern showed no benefit to the general public. The record also showed reliance on the trust deed, audited accounts, historical origin of the waqf, and the principle that charitable status is not defeated merely because the benefit is confined to a recognisable section of the public. The controlling test applied was whether the beneficiaries constitute an impersonal class and whether the activities remain charitable in nature, rather than whether the benefit extends to all persons indiscriminately.

Conclusion: The cancellation and rejection of registration were not justified. The trust's activities could not be denied charitable character merely because they benefited a defined community, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The registration-related adverse order was set aside and the assessee's challenge succeeded, leaving the trust's charitable status undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A trust does not cease to be charitable merely because its beneficiaries form a defined section of the public, so long as the class is impersonal and the activities are charitable in substance.

Issues: Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained solely on the ground that the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A instead of section 271(1)(c), and whether the assessment order could be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on that basis.

Analysis: The revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 requires a demonstrable error in the assessment order that causes prejudice to Revenue. The record showed that penalty proceedings had already been initiated, and the controversy was only about the provision under which such proceedings were to be invoked. The Tribunal held that this choice of penalty provision could not, by itself, render the assessment order erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Reference was also made to the statutory safeguard under section 275 regarding opportunity of being heard in penalty matters.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was not justified, and the revision order was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the impugned orders warranted remand for fresh adjudication where the appellant had not effectively participated before the original authority and certain submissions and decisions now relied upon had not been considered.

Analysis: The adjudicatory process must be based on the materials and contentions placed before the authority, and the authority cannot be faulted for not dealing with matters never brought to its notice. At the same time, a quasi-judicial authority is bound to pass a speaking and reasoned order dealing with the submissions actually placed before it. In the absence of effective participation, the adjudication was incomplete on the issues now sought to be urged, and a fresh consideration was necessary in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The matter required remand and the impugned orders were set aside to the extent challenged, with directions for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial order must be a speaking and reasoned order addressing the submissions placed before the authority, and where the original adjudication is incomplete because relevant contentions were not considered, remand for fresh decision is appropriate.

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest of the corpus and the consequent remand were illegal for want of lawful disclosure of grounds of arrest and compliance with the statutory requirement of prior recording of reasons to believe.

Analysis: The record of the remand proceedings showed that the arrest memo available before the Magistrate was identical to the copy placed before the Court, and the deficiency regarding omission of the time of arrest and the arresting officer's signature was not accepted as a valid explanation. The material also showed that the authorization for arrest was issued after the arrest had already been effected, and that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished in the manner required by law. In a habeas corpus challenge arising from an arrest under the goods and services tax law, such non-compliance goes to the legality of detention itself and vitiates the remand based on that arrest.

Conclusion: The arrest and remand were held illegal, the remand order was quashed, and release from custody was upheld in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the petitioner obtained relief against unlawful detention, while the respondents were left free to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An arrest under the tax statute is invalid if the grounds of arrest are not duly furnished and the statutory precondition of prior recorded reasons to believe is not satisfied before arrest, and any remand founded on such arrest cannot stand.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to cum-tax benefit while reworking service tax liability. (ii) Whether the impugned order required setting aside and remand for de novo adjudication in view of additional documents and disputes on quantification and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to cum-tax benefit while reworking service tax liability.

Analysis: Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that where the gross amount charged for a taxable service is inclusive of service tax, the taxable value must be determined by treating the gross amount as including tax. The Tribunal applied this statutory scheme and followed the settled position that, where tax has not been separately collected, the gross receipt is to be treated as cum-tax for quantification of liability.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to cum-tax benefit.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order required setting aside and remand for de novo adjudication in view of additional documents and disputes on quantification and penalties.

Analysis: The appellant produced additional documents not examined by the adjudicating authority and raised disputes on the nature of consideration, valuation, quantification, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal held that these factual matters required fresh examination by the jurisdictional adjudicating authority after consideration of the record, the additional materials, and the appellant's submissions, with observance of natural justice and a reasoned order on re-adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication with directions for re-computation of liability and reconsideration of penalties.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the assessee obtained cum-tax relief, and the entire matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on the remaining factual and quantification issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service tax has not been separately collected, valuation must be computed on a cum-tax basis under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and disputed factual questions affecting quantification and penalties may be remitted for fresh adjudication when additional evidence has not been examined.

Issues: (i) Whether cenvat credit on inputs allegedly used exclusively in exempted products could be reversed after the assessee had discharged the amount payable under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; and (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether cenvat credit on inputs allegedly used exclusively in exempted products could be reversed after the assessee had discharged the amount payable under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rule 6 obliges maintenance of separate accounts where inputs are used for both dutiable and exempted goods, and where separate accounts are not maintained the manufacturer may opt to pay the prescribed amount on exempted goods. Explanation II denies credit on inputs used exclusively in exempted goods, but the controversy turned on whether further reversal could still be demanded after the prescribed amount had already been paid. The assessee had not maintained separate accounts and had paid the percentage amount on exempted clearances. In such circumstances, further insistence on reversal of credit on the same inputs was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand for reversal of cenvat credit on the alleged exclusive inputs was not sustainable, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed the payment of the prescribed amount in ER-1 returns, and the unit had been audited periodically without objection. These facts negatived any allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. In the absence of such suppression, invocation of the extended period was not justified.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded on both merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a manufacturer opting not to maintain separate accounts under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has already discharged the prescribed amount on exempted clearances, further reversal of credit on the same inputs cannot be demanded, and disclosure of such payment in returns and audits negates extended limitation in the absence of suppression of facts.

Issues: Whether the premises at AL-61 was let out for residential purposes so as to fall outside the taxable service of renting of immovable property under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The lease agreement recorded that the premises was demised for use as a residence by the Managing Director of the lessee company, and the record contained no material to show that the property was used for business or commercial purposes. The statutory exclusion in the definition of taxable service applies to a building used solely for residential purposes, and the mere fact that the lease was executed in the name of a company did not by itself negate the stated residential use. The notarised affidavit supporting residential occupation till 31.03.2011 was also found credible, and the contrary inference drawn in the adjudication order was held to be unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The property at AL-61 was proved to have been used solely for residential purposes and was not liable to service tax under the said taxable entry.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A building let and shown to be used solely as a residence remains outside the taxable ambit of renting of immovable property, and the form of the lessee alone does not defeat the residential-use exclusion in the absence of contrary evidence.

Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the GST demand order in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether there was any violation of natural justice for want of personal hearing under the GST framework.

Analysis: The notices and final order were treated as proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioners did not file replies to the show-cause notices and did not request a personal hearing, while the statute contemplates hearing upon appropriate request. The Court held that, in these circumstances, there was no violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act or of the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the impugned order raised issues that were available to be challenged in appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, and the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked after the appellate limitation had expired. Rule 142 of the CGST Rules was not accepted as a basis to bypass the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and seek condonation of delay as available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxable person does not respond to the show-cause notice or seek a hearing, and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ relief is ordinarily not maintainable absent a demonstrable breach of natural justice.

Issues: Whether approval granted under section 151 for issuance of notice under section 148 was mechanical and without independent application of mind, and whether the subsequent reassessment proceedings could survive.

Analysis: The approval recorded only that, on going through the satisfaction note and the comments of the Assessing Officer and Range Head, it was a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148. No independent reasoning, consideration of the material, or indication of separate satisfaction by the specified authority was recorded. Since sanction under section 151 requires an informed and independent decision by the higher authority, a mere endorsement of the Assessing Officer's view does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The approval under section 151 was held to be mechanical, arbitrary, and invalid, with the result that the notice and all consequential proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment foundation having failed for want of valid sanction, the appeal succeeded and the impugned proceedings were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Sanction under section 151 must reflect independent application of mind by the specified authority; a mechanical endorsement of the Assessing Officer's recommendation vitiates the reassessment jurisdiction and renders the consequential proceedings invalid.

Issues: Whether the disallowance of occupation charges and related interest was rightly deleted and the deduction was allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The liability towards occupation charges, together with the associated interest, was settled in the relevant assessment year. The record showed that the demand was finally resolved in that year, and the interest component was not ultimately pressed by the creditor. On these facts, the expenditure was treated as incurred for business purposes and not as a disallowable item. The objection based on section 43B was not accepted as a ground to disturb the finding that the claim was allowable under section 37(1).

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was upheld and the claim was held allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the ingredients of rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were satisfied so as to sustain the penalty imposed on the appellant. (ii) Whether the finding of purchase of excisable goods based on the appellant's statement recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be relied upon without following the procedure under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the ingredients of rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were satisfied so as to sustain the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Analysis: Rule 26(1) is a penal provision and requires strict construction. Penalty can be imposed only if the person has dealt with excisable goods and knew or had reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Act or the rules. The order under challenge did not record any finding that the appellant had such knowledge or reason to believe, though that mental element is a necessary constituent of the rule.

Conclusion: The ingredients of rule 26(1) were not established, and the penalty could not be sustained against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of purchase of excisable goods based on the appellant's statement recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be relied upon without following the procedure under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The impugned order relied on the appellant's statement under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to hold that he purchased the goods from an unregistered factory. Such a statement cannot be treated as relevant unless the statutory procedure under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is followed. The factual foundation for the penalty therefore lacked admissible support.

Conclusion: The reliance on the statement was not permissible in the absence of compliance with section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable in law, and the appellant was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof of actual dealing with excisable goods coupled with knowledge or reason to believe that they are liable to confiscation, and a statement under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be relied upon unless section 9D of that Act is complied with.