Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on inputs and corresponding GTA services could be denied solely on vehicle-related discrepancies reflected in VAHAN portal data and limited third-party communications, despite statutory and commercial records evidencing receipt and consumption of inputs; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of the disputed credit was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on inputs and corresponding GTA services could be denied solely on vehicle-related discrepancies reflected in VAHAN portal data and limited third-party communications, despite statutory and commercial records evidencing receipt and consumption of inputs.

Analysis: Denial of substantive credit on an allegation of non-receipt of inputs requires positive, cogent and convincing evidence. VAHAN portal particulars, including entries showing non-digitised or incorrect vehicle data, and unverified communications from owners relating to only four of 270 consignments could not conclusively establish non-receipt. The Revenue neither investigated suppliers or transporters comprehensively nor found stock discrepancies, diversion of inputs, fabrication of statutory records, or an alternative source of raw materials. The undisputed manufacture and duty-paid clearance of finished goods, supported by input registers, transport records, purchase accounts and payments, materially supported actual receipt and use of the inputs. Procedural deficiencies in consignment notes, without independent corroboration of fictitious transactions, were insufficient to deny credit.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the inputs and corresponding GTA services was admissible; the denial of credit was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of the disputed credit was invocable.

Analysis: The credit had been reflected in regularly filed statutory returns, and the assessee maintained contemporaneous transport, purchase, payment and statutory records. The Revenue produced no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, which are essential for invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand lacked evidentiary foundation on merits and was independently barred by limitation; the consequential interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive CENVAT credit cannot be denied on suspicion arising from vehicle-data discrepancies without credible corroborative evidence of non-receipt of inputs, and the extended limitation period requires proof of the statutory ingredients of suppression or similar intent.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand based on a vague and hypothetical computation in the show cause notice was sustainable; (ii) Whether freight and insurance embedded in the sale price were includible in assessable value by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand based on a vague and hypothetical computation in the show cause notice was sustainable.

Analysis: The computation assumed differing freight rates for portions of the clearances without disclosing a basis, failed to ascertain actual freight or insurance amounts, and did not identify whether the quantities concerned movement from factory to depot or from depot to customers. The notice also omitted material price declarations showing that no deduction for freight and insurance was claimed and that the prices were inclusive of freight. A show cause notice must contain specific allegations sufficient to enable an effective defence.

Conclusion: The demand founded on the vague and hypothetical show cause notice was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether freight and insurance embedded in the sale price were includible in assessable value by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal.

Analysis: The price charged was all-inclusive and duty had been paid on that price, with no evidence that any separate freight or insurance amount was recovered from customers. Transit insurance did not establish retention of ownership until delivery. For the relevant period, the place of removal referred to a place from which the manufacturer sold goods, not the buyer's place of delivery. The factory or depot from which the goods were sold remained the place of removal.

Conclusion: Freight and insurance were not includible in assessable value, and the buyer's premises could not be treated as the place of removal, in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed through the 1996 price list and subsequent correspondence that freight was not deducted from assessable value. No fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression was established, while the demand notice was issued beyond the normal period for the relevant clearances.

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

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax demand failed independently for vagueness of the notice, on valuation merits, and on limitation; consequential interest and penalty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot rest on an indeterminate and hypothetical show cause notice, and freight or insurance already embedded in the taxed sale price cannot be added again by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal absent a legally sustainable basis.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the allegation that inputs covered by a registered dealer's invoices were not physically received; (ii) Whether investigation statements, without statutory compliance and independent corroboration, could sustain the demand; (iii) Whether isolated vehicle-registration discrepancies obtained from the Vahan portal established fictitious transactions and non-receipt of inputs; (iv) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the allegation that inputs covered by a registered dealer's invoices were not physically received.

Analysis: The recipient held valid invoices issued by a registered first-stage dealer, made payments through banking channels, discharged applicable transport-service tax, and maintained statutory returns, stock records and purchase documentation. The finished goods manufactured from the inputs were cleared on payment of duty, while no investigation established any alternative source of raw materials or otherwise proved that the invoiced inputs were not received. The Revenue did not discharge its burden through cogent affirmative evidence.

Conclusion: Denial of CENVAT credit for alleged non-receipt of inputs is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether investigation statements, without statutory compliance and independent corroboration, could sustain the demand.

Analysis: There was no categorical admission from the recipient's representatives that the inputs were never delivered. The dealer's statement contained material inconsistencies and was alleged to have been obtained under coercion. Statements recorded during investigation could not independently sustain denial of credit without compliance with the safeguards under Section 9D and without reliable corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The statements were insufficient and legally unreliable as the sole basis for the demand, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether isolated vehicle-registration discrepancies obtained from the Vahan portal established fictitious transactions and non-receipt of inputs.

Analysis: The discrepancies concerned only a few vehicle numbers among numerous consignments and vehicles. No vehicle owners were examined and no independent evidence established that the disputed consignments had not been transported. Vahan-portal particulars, unsupported by a complete investigation or corroboration, had limited probative value and could not justify treating all transactions as paper transactions.

Conclusion: Isolated Vahan-portal discrepancies did not establish non-receipt of goods or fraudulent availment of credit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The disputed credit was reflected in ER-1 returns, books, stock registers and other contemporaneous records, and the records had been subjected to departmental audit without objection. No cogent evidence established fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, which was necessary to invoke the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand for reversal of credit, consequential interest, and penalties lacked evidentiary and limitation support; the impugned order was modified by setting aside those liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied on uncorroborated investigation statements or isolated transport-vehicle discrepancies where valid transactional records support receipt and use of inputs, and the Revenue fails to prove non-receipt or the ingredients for the extended limitation period.

Issues: Whether input tax credit availed for financial year 2018-19 after the earlier statutory deadline was admissible following the insertion of Section 16(5).

Analysis: Section 16(5) permitted availment of input tax credit through returns filed under Section 39 on or before 30.11.2021 for the specified financial years. The credit in question, though availed on 20.12.2019 beyond the then applicable deadline, fell within the extended period. The constitutional challenge to the time-limit provisions was not pursued.

Conclusion: The input tax credit was admissible under Section 16(5), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a penalty imposed after filing of returns and payment of late fees could exceed the statutory maximum prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The returns had already been filed and the applicable late fees paid. The aggregate penalty imposed exceeded the maximum limit prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The penalty order and the show-cause notice were quashed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the special leave petitions were dismissed as nothing survived following withdrawal of the show-cause notice.

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of imported Main PCB Boards was liable to rejection and reassessment on contemporaneous-import data; (ii) Whether differential duty with interest was recoverable by invoking the extended period; (iii) Whether the statements and documentary material could be relied upon without cross-examination; (iv) Whether penalties on the importer, its representative, overseas supplier-controller and domestic beneficiary were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of imported Main PCB Boards was liable to rejection and reassessment on contemporaneous-import data.

Analysis: The declared importer acted only as a commission-based conduit; the overseas supplier and domestic beneficiary controlled the import, pricing and disposal of the goods. The declared price was not the sole consideration and the transaction lacked the characteristics required for acceptance of transaction value. The comparable imports concerned the same goods, tariff heading, country of origin, period and comparable quantities. The appellants had disclosed no distinguishing technical specifications. The lowest contemporaneous value adopted was therefore a valid and conservative basis for reassessment under the sequential valuation framework.

Conclusion: Rejection of the declared transaction value and redetermination of assessable value were valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether differential duty with interest was recoverable by invoking the extended period.

Analysis: The import arrangement involved deliberate under-declaration of value, fabricated billing and diversion of the goods to the actual domestic beneficiary. Subsequent investigation disclosed suppression and undervaluation notwithstanding initial clearance of the consignments. Such facts justified recovery proceedings under the extended period.

Conclusion: Differential duty and applicable interest were recoverable, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the statements and documentary material could be relied upon without cross-examination.

Analysis: The findings rested on Bills of Entry, documentary evidence and voluntary admissions of the appellants. Statements recorded by Customs officers under the statutory summons power were treated as admissible evidence. As no investigative-officer statement was relied upon against the appellants and the material evidence comprised their own admissions and documents, cross-examination was neither relevant nor necessary.

Conclusion: The evidentiary material was rightly relied upon and denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the adjudication, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties on the importer, its representative, overseas supplier-controller and domestic beneficiary were justified.

Analysis: The proprietor was responsible for declarations made by the proprietary concern and had adopted her representative's admissions. The representative admitted lending the importer's credentials, receiving commission, issuing fabricated invoices and knowingly routing goods to the beneficiary. The overseas supplier-controller coordinated undervalued exports, while the domestic beneficiary controlled pricing, billing and receipt of the goods. These acts established knowing participation and abetment in the undervaluation arrangement.

Conclusion: Penalties under Sections 114A, 112(a) and 112(b) were justified, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transaction-value reassessment, recovery of duty with interest, confiscation consequences and penalties arising from the coordinated undervaluation arrangement remain legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the declared importer is a conduit and the declared price is not the sole consideration, transaction value may be rejected and reassessed using reliable contemporaneous imports; voluntary Customs statements and corroborative documents may establish deliberate undervaluation and abetment.

Issues: (i) Whether the service-tax demand and interest were liable to be sustained after payment and admission of liability; (ii) Whether penalties imposed for non-payment of service tax, registration and return-related defaults were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the service-tax demand and interest were liable to be sustained after payment and admission of liability.

Analysis: The appellant had admitted its service-tax liability and paid the tax with interest in July 2006. The deposited amounts had already been appropriated in the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand and interest were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed for non-payment of service tax, registration and return-related defaults were sustainable.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period and penalty for suppression required proof of a positive and deliberate act of concealment with intent to evade tax. The dispute arose from interpretation of a commercial agreement, and no such positive act was established merely because tax was paid after inquiry. Penalty under Section 75A was without jurisdiction because that provision stood omitted and was not saved. The penalty under Section 77 was imposed for a default different from that alleged in the show-cause notice. The appellant's prompt registration and payment upon becoming aware of taxability also established bona fide belief and reasonable cause for relief under Section 80.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The admitted tax liability and interest remain enforceable, while the penal consequences for the disputed period do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression warranting the extended limitation period and penalty requires a positive act of deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax; a bona fide interpretational dispute and subsequent compliance do not by themselves establish such suppression.

Issues: (i) Whether service-tax demand on construction of warehouses and office buildings was sustainable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service where the structures were used for storage of agricultural produce and the contracts were indivisible works contracts; (ii) Whether receipts from renting of immovable property qualified for small-scale service-provider exemption.

Issue (i): Whether service-tax demand on construction of warehouses and office buildings was sustainable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service where the structures were used for storage of agricultural produce and the contracts were indivisible works contracts.

Analysis: Certificates from the user entities established that the constructed buildings were used exclusively for grain storage, and no contrary evidence established commercial use. Further, the work orders were indivisible contracts involving materials and services whose values could not be vivisected; consequently, the activity could not be subjected to tax under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service.

Conclusion: The construction-service demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from renting of immovable property qualified for small-scale service-provider exemption.

Analysis: Once the construction-service demand was held unsustainable, no evidence remained that the assessee had other taxable-service receipts to be included in determining eligibility for the small-scale exemption threshold.

Conclusion: Small-scale exemption for renting receipts was available, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No part of the disputed service-tax demand survived on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An indivisible contract involving material and service cannot be taxed as Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, and small-scale exemption is available where there is no evidence of other taxable receipts affecting eligibility.

Issues: Availability of the statutory appellate remedy against the order-in-original and consequential recovery action.

Outcome: The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay; coercive action was restrained during that period, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier judgment granting relief on offshore technical-service payments was liable to be modified because of the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9; (ii) Whether the amendment to Section 9 could operate retrospectively from 01.06.1976.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier judgment granting relief on offshore technical-service payments was liable to be modified because of the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9.

Analysis: Section 9(1)(vii), read with Sections 5 and 195 of the Income-tax Act, was construed in light of territorial nexus and the requirement that income must be chargeable to tax at the relevant time. The Finance Act, 2010 Explanation dispensed with the requirement that services be rendered in India and thereby enlarged the tax net. A subsequent legislative change, even if retrospective in form, was not a ground to reopen a concluded decision through review. Further, Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA was treated as the more beneficial regime under Section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion: The Finance Act, 2010 amendment did not warrant reversal or modification of the earlier relief; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Section 9 could operate retrospectively from 01.06.1976.

Analysis: Although framed as an Explanation for removal of doubts, the amendment widened the scope of Section 9(1)(vii) by bringing within taxability fees for services rendered outside India. An amendment that creates a fresh tax charge or imposes a new liability cannot retrospectively take away benefits or vested rights available under the law prevailing when the payments were made. The withdrawal of beneficial Board circulars by Circular No. 7/2009 was also prospective and could not retrospectively withdraw the taxpayer's benefit.

Conclusion: The Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9 is to operate prospectively and not retrospectively from 01.06.1976; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective expansion of taxability for offshore technical services was read down, preserving the taxpayer's entitlement under the pre-amendment legal position and the applicable treaty protection.

Ratio Decidendi: A purportedly clarificatory tax amendment that substantively widens a charging provision or creates a fresh liability cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions completed under the earlier law.

Issues: (i) Whether a co-operative bank is exempt under Section 194A(3)(v) from deducting tax at source on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies; (ii) Whether the co-operative bank can consequently be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and charged interest under Section 201(1A).

Issue (i): Whether a co-operative bank is exempt under Section 194A(3)(v) from deducting tax at source on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies.

Analysis: Section 194A(3)(v) contains two distinct limbs. The first excludes a co-operative bank from exemption for interest paid to its members. The second exempts interest credited or paid by a co-operative society to another co-operative society, without excluding a co-operative bank. A co-operative bank retains its legal character as a co-operative society; reading an exclusion into the second limb would add words that the legislature did not enact. Paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19/2015 confirms that this exemption continues to apply where a co-operative bank pays interest on time deposits to a depositor that is a co-operative society. The provisions governing deductions available to recipient societies under Section 80P(2)(d) operate at the assessment stage and do not determine the payer's independent TDS obligation under Section 194A.

Conclusion: A co-operative bank is exempt from deducting tax at source under Section 194A(3)(v) on interest paid to non-member co-operative societies. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the co-operative bank can consequently be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) and charged interest under Section 201(1A).

Analysis: Since the interest payments to non-member co-operative societies fall within the statutory exemption under Section 194A(3)(v), no obligation to deduct tax arose in respect of those payments. The premise for treating the assessee as having defaulted in TDS compliance therefore fails.

Conclusion: The assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) or subjected to consequential interest under Section 201(1A). The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's contrary interpretation of the exemption and its failure to give effect to the applicable CBDT clarification were legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 194A(3)(v) exempts interest paid by a co-operative society to another co-operative society without excluding co-operative banks, a co-operative bank remains entitled to that exemption for interest paid to non-member co-operative societies.

Issues: (i) Whether the Glow Plug Control Unit is classifiable under Heading 8511, Heading 8537, or Heading 9032 of the Customs Tariff; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty for alleged misclassification were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Glow Plug Control Unit is classifiable under Heading 8511, Heading 8537, or Heading 9032 of the Customs Tariff.

Analysis: Heading 9032 excludes apparatus for switching or controlling electrical circuits that are more specifically covered by Chapter 85. The unit, being a single printed-circuit-board electronic module comprising a shunt, relay and microcontroller, did not satisfy the structural requirement of Heading 8537 for boards, panels or similar bases equipped with two or more apparatus of Heading 8535 or 8536, nor was its function merely electrical control or distribution. Applying General Interpretative Rule 1, the relevant Section Notes and the HSN Explanatory Notes, the unit regulates heating of glow plugs and contributes with them to the defined function of electrical ignition or starting of a compression-ignition engine. It is therefore an inherent part of the glow-plug ignition system.

Conclusion: The Glow Plug Control Unit is classifiable under Heading 8511. This finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty for alleged misclassification were sustainable.

Analysis: Earlier bills of entry showed that the assessee had consistently declared the goods under Heading 90328990 and the Customs authorities had cleared them without disputing that classification. This negated suppression, misdeclaration, or intent to evade duty, notwithstanding that the classification adopted by the assessee was held incorrect.

Conclusion: The demand is sustainable only for the normal period, while the extended-period demand and penalty under Section 114A are unsustainable. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The goods remain liable to duty under the classification applicable to ignition and starting equipment, but recovery beyond the normal limitation period and the associated penalty cannot be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an electronic controller is functionally integral to the regulation of glow plugs and the engine-starting system, its tariff classification is governed by the specific heading for ignition or starting equipment under the applicable Section Notes and HSN guidance; prior departmental clearance of the declared classification negates the requisite suppression or intent for extended limitation and penalty.

Issues: Whether the bank's order classifying the company account as fraud was unreasoned and was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: A fraud-classification order need not contain reasons equivalent to a judicial judgment, but must disclose due application of mind and satisfy fairness. The impugned order incorporated the transaction-audit findings, including diversion of funds through an undisclosed bank account, related-party transactions, unjustified transfers, and interest-free loans and advances; it consequently disclosed adequate reasons. The petitioners had received the draft and final transaction-audit materials, were given access to records and opportunities to furnish supporting data, and were afforded 21 days to answer the show-cause notice. Their failure to avail those opportunities and their vague request for further time justified refusal of an extension.

Conclusion: The fraud-classification order was reasoned and was not passed in breach of principles of natural justice; the finding is against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A fraud-classification decision satisfies the requirement of reasons and natural justice where it identifies and adopts material audit findings, the affected persons have prior knowledge and access to the underlying allegations and records, and a reasonable opportunity to respond is afforded but not availed.

Issues: Whether directions for redistribution and disbursement under the approved resolution plan could be restrained pending adjudication of the challenge before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The earlier appellate judgment had crystallised the admitted claim, directed the Monitoring Committee to redistribute the allocated amount in accordance with that judgment, and required a decision on distribution of amounts held in escrow. Those directions were passed after considering the relevant Committee of Creditors resolution and the plan-approval order. The challenge to that judgment, including a request to stay distribution, was pending before the Supreme Court, which had granted no stay. Reconsideration of the same directions through the present application would therefore be inappropriate.

Conclusion: Restraint of the redistribution or distribution directions was refused; the issue was decided against the applicant.

Issues: Whether the appellants claiming rights in attached villa plots as bona fide purchasers were entitled to release of the properties in the appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The appellants produced material suggesting payment of substantial sale consideration and asserted that the vendors had misdeclared the plots as unsold, without refunding the amounts received. The material indicated that the alleged cancellation of allotments and the vendors' claim that the plots remained unsold required verification. However, no sale deeds had been executed, one claimant had not established payment details, and another had not produced an agreement to sell. The determination whether the claimants were genuine bona fide purchasers or had acted in collusion with the accused required appreciation of prosecution and defence evidence in the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The entitlement of the appellants as bona fide purchasers was left for determination by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; the Enforcement Directorate may verify their claims and report to that court, where appropriate relief under Section 8(8) may be sought.

Issues: Whether expenses reimbursed to the assessee by the service recipient for payments made to third parties in the capacity of a pure agent are includible in the taxable value of clearing and forwarding services.

Analysis: The reimbursement represented expenses incurred on behalf of the service recipient, paid to third parties, recorded and adjusted in the assessee's books, and recovered from the recipient. The transaction satisfied the conditions for exclusion of pure-agent expenditure from taxable value under Rule 5(2).

Conclusion: The reimbursed pure-agent expenses were not taxable; the service-tax demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's showroom fit-out works constituted original works eligible for valuation on 40% of the works-contract value; (ii) Whether forfeited customer advance for unpurchased goods was consideration for a taxable service; (iii) Whether reimbursement for goods lost in a showroom fire was consideration for a taxable service.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's showroom fit-out works constituted original works eligible for valuation on 40% of the works-contract value.

Analysis: The works involved converting newly constructed commercial building shells into functional showrooms by installing usable flooring, ceilings, internal walls and partitions, HVAC, fire-suppression systems, plumbing and other fit-outs. Materials were incorporated in execution of the contracts, and VAT was paid on 80% of the contract value. Applying Rule 2A(ii)(A), such comprehensive conversion of bare commercial structures into complete showrooms was treated as original works rather than mere completion or finishing services.

Conclusion: The works were original works, and the appellant rightly discharged service tax on 40% of the works-contract value after 60% abatement. The demand on this count was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether forfeited customer advance for unpurchased goods was consideration for a taxable service.

Analysis: The amount represented an advance forfeited because the customer abandoned the purchase of ordered goods. The forfeiture did not arise from any service provided by the appellant.

Conclusion: The forfeited advance was not consideration for a taxable service and was not liable to service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reimbursement for goods lost in a showroom fire was consideration for a taxable service.

Analysis: The amount was reimbursement for loss of goods caused by a fire in the showroom. It compensated the appellant for its loss and was not consideration for any service rendered.

Conclusion: The reimbursement was not liable to service tax, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All components of the service-tax demand lacked a taxable basis; consequently, the associated penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Comprehensive works-contract activities that transform bare newly constructed commercial structures into functional showrooms are original works for valuation purposes, while forfeited advances for abandoned goods purchases and reimbursement of loss are not consideration for taxable services.

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to direct suspended directors of a lessee corporate debtor to assist the resolution professional of the lessor corporate debtor in identifying and recovering leased electric vehicles.

Analysis: Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers broad jurisdiction over questions of law or fact arising out of or relating to the insolvency resolution process. The recovery of vehicles owned by the corporate debtor and leased to the other corporate debtor bore a direct nexus to preservation and control of the former's assets during its insolvency resolution. The appellants, as members of the suspended management of the lessee corporate debtor, had acknowledged their responsibility to provide available information and assistance concerning the vehicles. The direction required their cooperation for identification and recovery of assets and was therefore within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the appellants to assist in identification and recovery of the leased vehicles was valid and within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction, against the appellants.

Issues: Whether an indivisible turnkey contract for the supply, installation and commissioning of ATMs, executed for a composite consideration before 01.06.2007, could be vivisected to levy service tax on a notional installation and commissioning component under the taxable category of commissioning or installation.

Analysis: The contracts had a single commercial objective of delivering fully functional ATMs and provided one composite consideration. Installation and commissioning were integral and inseparable obligations incidental to the supply of ATMs, rather than independently contracted or separately remunerated services. During the relevant period, the charging provisions for taxable services and the valuation provision did not authorise segregation of the service element from an indivisible composite contract. A valuation exercise could not create a taxable event or sustain the Revenue's notional attribution of 33% of the consideration. The later introduction of a distinct works-contract taxable entry with a valuation mechanism from 01.06.2007 confirmed that the earlier statutory framework did not cover indivisible composite works contracts.

Conclusion: No part of the composite consideration under the turnkey ATM contracts was liable to service tax as commissioning or installation service for the relevant period. The finding is in favour of the assessee.