Issues: (i) Whether the services performed under the work orders were classifiable as goods transport agency service rather than mining of mineral, oil or gas service; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to small-service-provider exemption for management, maintenance and repair service and supply of tangible goods service, and the consequent tax, interest and penalties; (iii) Whether the separate service-tax demand for April 2013 to March 2014 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the services performed under the work orders were classifiable as goods transport agency service rather than mining of mineral, oil or gas service.

Analysis: The work orders established that transportation of coal, slurry and related material was the predominant activity, while the remaining activities were incidental or ancillary. Applying composite service classification and the essential character test, the service was to be classified according to its principal transportation element. Where consignment notes are issued, liability for goods transport agency service is attracted on the specified corporate service recipients under the reverse charge mechanism; transportation without consignment notes falls within the negative list.

Conclusion: The services were classifiable as goods transport agency service and not mining service. The mining-service tax demand, related interest and penalty under Section 78 were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to small-service-provider exemption for management, maintenance and repair service and supply of tangible goods service, and the consequent tax, interest and penalties.

Analysis: The turnover from these two services remained within the exemption threshold in all relevant financial years except that it exceeded the threshold by Rs. 18,958 in 2010-11. Tax was consequently payable on the excess turnover for 2010-11 and on the taxable turnover of Rs. 8,66,678 for 2011-12, aggregating to Rs. 91,221, with interest. Suppression with intent to evade was not established. The amount already deposited was directed to be appropriated towards the confirmed tax and interest.

Conclusion: Service tax of Rs. 91,221 with interest was confirmed only for the specified taxable turnover for 2010-11 and 2011-12. No penalty under Section 76 was imposable, while the penalty under Section 77 for delayed filing of returns was upheld; the issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the separate service-tax demand for April 2013 to March 2014 was sustainable.

Analysis: The adjudication order contained no finding supporting this demand. Further, if the demand concerned mining service, it failed for the same classification reason; otherwise, the turnover qualified for the small-service-provider exemption.

Conclusion: The demand for April 2013 to March 2014 was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The enforceable fiscal liability was confined to the limited non-exempt turnover under management, maintenance and repair service and supply of tangible goods service, together with interest and the return-filing penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite service must be classified by its essential character, and incidental activities accompanying the predominant transportation of goods do not convert it into mining service.

Issues: (i) Whether the deputation of an expatriate employee by the overseas company constituted taxable Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service?; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable?

Issue (i): Whether the deputation of an expatriate employee by the overseas company constituted taxable Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service?

Analysis: The memorandum described the expatriate as an employee of the overseas company assigned to the assessee for a fixed and short duration. The statutory definitions cover temporary supply of manpower, and the relevant enquiry is the nature of the service provided by the overseas entity. Salary payments, tax deduction at source and issuance of Form 16 by the assessee did not alter the character of the arrangement. The binding principle governing seconded employees was applied.

Conclusion: The deputation constituted taxable Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable?

Analysis: The demand was issued after the normal period, and the Department relied on audit and investigation to allege suppression. The applied limitation principle requires deliberate withholding of material facts; discovery during audit, without a reasoned establishment of such deliberate suppression, cannot by itself justify the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the service was found taxable on merits, the demand could not be sustained because the notice was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of the extended period of limitation requires deliberate withholding of material facts; audit-based detection without a reasoned finding of such suppression is insufficient.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on alleged non-receipt of inputs where the Revenue relied on unadmitted third-party statements, uncertified third-party electronic records and limited transport discrepancies; (ii) Whether the Director's personal penalty under Rule 26 could survive without admissible proof of his knowing participation or of goods liable to confiscation; and (iii) Whether the Rs. 8,00,000 deposit made during investigation constituted an admission of liability

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on alleged non-receipt of inputs where the Revenue relied on unadmitted third-party statements, uncertified third-party electronic records and limited transport discrepancies

Analysis: Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires the maker of an investigative statement to be examined and the statement admitted in evidence in the interests of justice, unless a specified statutory exception applies. The dealers' and transporter's statements were directly relied upon without compliance with this mandatory procedure and were therefore unavailable to prove their contents. The electronic data extracted from a hard disk seized from a third party was also inadmissible because the statutory safeguards and certificate required by Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were absent.

Analysis: No cogent financial trail established that payments made by the appellant-company had been returned in cash. Nor was there evidence of an alternative source of inputs, stock deficit, input-output mismatch, or transaction-specific non-transportation sufficient to displace the appellant-company's invoices, payment records, production records and duty-paid clearances. Sample vehicle-registration discrepancies and untested portal data could not establish non-receipt under every disputed invoice.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the denial of CENVAT credit, consequential interest and the corporate penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Director's personal penalty under Rule 26 could survive without admissible proof of his knowing participation or of goods liable to confiscation

Analysis: Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires transaction-specific proof of knowledge, active participation and conscious dealing with goods liable to confiscation. No admissible evidence established the Director's personal mens rea or overt involvement, and the foundation of the principal credit demand had failed.

Conclusion: In favour of the Director, the personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the Rs. 8,00,000 deposit made during investigation constituted an admission of liability

Analysis: A payment made during investigation, including one asserted to have been made under coercion or apprehension of coercive action, does not by itself amount to an unconditional admission of tax liability or establish fraudulent availment of credit.

Conclusion: The investigative deposit did not constitute an admission of liability.

Final Conclusion: The inadmissible and uncorroborated evidentiary material did not establish non-receipt of inputs or collusive availment of credit, leaving no sustainable basis for the related fiscal or personal penal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Third-party statements not admitted under Section 9D and electronic records not authenticated under Section 36B cannot sustain denial of CENVAT credit where independent, transaction-specific evidence does not establish non-receipt of inputs or the assessee's participation in fraud.

Issues: (i) Whether a statutory demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is validly served when it is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address and received by the drawer's mother; (ii) Whether the decision treating service upon a drawer's spouse as insufficient without examining the correctness of the address or shared residence is binding precedent.

Issue (i): Whether a statutory demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is validly served when it is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address and received by the drawer's mother.

Analysis: Proviso (b) to Section 138 requires the payee to give written notice to the drawer. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 raise a rebuttable presumption of service where notice is properly addressed and dispatched by registered post. The statutory requirement concerns giving notice, not proof of its personal receipt by the drawer. Once dispatch to the correct address is established, the burden lies on the drawer to show that the address was incorrect, that the notice was not tendered, or that the drawer had no knowledge of its delivery at that address. Receipt by a family member at the shared residential address does not, by itself, rebut that presumption.

Conclusion: Dispatch of the notice by registered post to the drawer's correct address satisfied the statutory requirement of giving notice; the unrebutted presumption of valid service applied notwithstanding receipt by the drawer's mother.

Issue (ii): Whether the decision treating service upon a drawer's spouse as insufficient without examining the correctness of the address or shared residence is binding precedent.

Analysis: The earlier decision had disregarded binding larger-Bench authority establishing deemed service upon correct dispatch and had treated a spouse as equivalent to an unrelated third party without addressing whether the notice was sent to the correct address or whether the spouse resided with the drawer. Such an approach conflicts with the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the settled rule that the drawer must rebut it.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was per incuriam and cannot operate as binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: A correctly addressed statutory notice sent by registered post attracts a rebuttable presumption of service, and the drawer cannot defeat that presumption merely because a co-residing family member received the notice.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, dispatch of a correctly addressed notice by registered post constitutes giving notice and raises a rebuttable presumption of service, which the drawer must displace by credible proof of non-service or lack of knowledge not attributable to the drawer.

Issues: Whether a merits order quashing the issuance of process warranted recall because the complainant was unrepresented when the matter was finally heard.

Analysis: The order sought to be recalled had adjudicated the complaint on merits after considering the pleadings and record and applying Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Although the complainant had remained absent when the matter was heard, the record reflected prior adjournments sought on its behalf and no cogent ground or infirmity was established to justify reopening the merits determination.

Conclusion: Recall of the merits order was unwarranted.

Issues: Whether refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure is available where bulk sulphur and packaged sulphur attract the same GST rate but packing materials attract a higher rate, notwithstanding the CBIC circulars concerning identical input and output supplies.

Analysis: Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits refund where input tax credit accumulates because the tax rate on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. Packing materials used to make bulk sulphur marketable in customised packets qualify as inputs under Section 2(59), and the higher tax paid on such materials resulted in accumulated credit. Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST concerned accumulation arising from a reduction in the rate on the same goods and did not govern the stated facts. Further, instructions issued under Section 168(1) may secure uniform implementation but cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Conclusion: The taxpayer is entitled to refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure; the restriction urged by Revenue on the basis that input and output supplies are the same is not applicable.

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packing materials used to package bulk sulphur is refundable under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding that the principal input and output sulphur attract GST at the same rate.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packing materials used to package bulk sulphur is refundable under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notwithstanding that the principal input and output sulphur attract GST at the same rate.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund where input tax credit accumulates because the tax rate on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. Packing materials used for marketing sulphur in customised packets are inputs used in the course or furtherance of business; their GST rate of 18% exceeded the 5% rate on the outward supply. The restriction in the departmental circulars concerning identical input and output supplies could not curtail the statutory refund entitlement, since the power to issue directions for uniform implementation does not permit addition of restrictions absent from the statute.

Conclusion: The accumulated input tax credit attributable to the higher-taxed packing materials is refundable under Section 54(3)(ii), and the sanctioned refund remains valid.

Issues: (i) Whether provisional attachment of two movable properties under Section 24(4)(a)(i), without preceding notice and attachment under Sections 24(1) and 24(3), was valid; (ii) Whether failure to identify, or incorrect identification of, the applicable clause of Section 2(9) invalidated the provisional attachment; (iii) Whether reliance on statements and evidence obtained in income-tax proceedings without independently collected evidence vitiated the attachment; and (iv) Whether the material established a benami transaction concerning the property under Section 2(9)(A).

Issue (i): Whether provisional attachment of two movable properties under Section 24(4)(a)(i), without preceding notice and attachment under Sections 24(1) and 24(3), was valid.

Analysis: Section 24(4)(a)(i) permits attachment only in respect of property already provisionally attached under Section 24(3). No notice or attachment under Sections 24(1) and 24(3) had been issued for the two movable properties. Attachment of other property required recourse to Section 24(4)(b)(i).

Conclusion: The attachment of the two movable properties under Section 24(4)(a)(i) was invalid, in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to identify, or incorrect identification of, the applicable clause of Section 2(9) invalidated the provisional attachment.

Analysis: Absence of a statutory reference, or reference to an incorrect clause, does not by itself invalidate action where the stated facts disclose a benami transaction under an applicable provision.

Conclusion: Non-reference or incorrect reference to the applicable clause of Section 2(9) was not fatal, in favour of the appellant Department.

Issue (iii): Whether reliance on statements and evidence obtained in income-tax proceedings without independently collected evidence vitiated the attachment.

Analysis: Evidence gathered during income-tax proceedings was capable of being relied upon, and the record also disclosed collection of evidence by the appellant Department.

Conclusion: Reliance on the income-tax material did not vitiate the attachment for want of independent evidence, in favour of the appellant Department.

Issue (iv): Whether the material established a benami transaction concerning the property under Section 2(9)(A).

Analysis: Section 2(9)(A) required proof that the consideration was paid by the alleged beneficial owner and that the property was held for that person's benefit. The alleged share-premium source arose eight to nine years before the purchase, and no evidence established a nexus between that premium and the purchase consideration. The premium had been received from several entities over different years, while financial records supported the stated source through liquidation of investments and mutual funds. The property also remained with the alleged benamidar, without proof of future benefit to an alleged beneficial owner.

Conclusion: The alleged benami transaction was not established, in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to confirm the attachment remained sustainable because the alleged benami transaction was not proved, notwithstanding the rejection of certain objections to the initiation procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: An allegation under Section 2(9)(A) requires proof that the purchase consideration was provided by the alleged beneficial owner and that the property was held for that person's benefit; temporal suspicion about earlier funding without a demonstrable nexus does not discharge that burden.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148, issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year upon approval of the Principal Commissioner, were jurisdictionally valid.

Analysis: Section 151(ii) requires approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or in their absence the Chief Commissioner or Director General, where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The order under section 148A(d) and consequential notice under section 148 were issued on 17.04.2023, after the three-year period for assessment year 2019-20 had expired, but approval was obtained only from the Principal Commissioner. Prior approval of the specified authority is mandatory for assumption of reassessment jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The approval did not comply with section 151(ii); consequently, the order under section 148A(d), the notice under section 148, and all proceedings and orders emanating from them were quashed.

Issues: Whether credits in a jointly held bank account could be assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without establishing that the assessee owned the credited amounts.

Analysis: Section 69A requires the assessee to be found to be the owner of the money sought to be treated as unexplained. The account was jointly operated by the assessee and her spouse, and the record showed that it was used for transactions of both. The sale proceeds credited in the account arose from a property accepted by the Revenue as belonging exclusively to the spouse. Transaction-wise explanations were also furnished for the disputed clearing entries. Mere credit in a joint account did not establish that every amount belonged to the assessee.

Conclusion: The ownership condition under Section 69A was not established; the addition of Rs. 14,04,069 was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment could validly be framed against a company that had been struck off and dissolved without restoration of its name; (ii) Whether an outward bank remittance towards import purchases could be assessed as unexplained money.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment could validly be framed against a company that had been struck off and dissolved without restoration of its name.

Analysis: The company had ceased to exist before the assessment was made, and the assessing authority was aware of its dissolution from the material on record. A struck-off company must be restored through the prescribed corporate-law process before assessment proceedings can validly be initiated or continued against it. Participation in proceedings cannot cure the jurisdictional defect arising from assessment of a non-existent entity.

Conclusion: The assessment against the dissolved and non-restored company was a jurisdictional nullity, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an outward bank remittance towards import purchases could be assessed as unexplained money.

Analysis: The provision concerning unexplained money requires a finding that the assessee was the owner of money or another specified valuable article not recorded in its books. The amount represented an outward remittance through banking channels for import purchases, being an application of funds rather than money found to be owned by the assessee. Failure to establish the source of expenditure cannot substitute the statutory requirement of ownership of unrecorded money.

Conclusion: The outward remittance was not assessable as unexplained money, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and the consequential addition lacked legal foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made against an entity that has ceased to exist in law is void for want of jurisdiction unless its legal existence is first restored.

Issues: Whether the appellants' statutory customs appeal should be restored where their claim had not been adjudicated on merits and restoration was refused on account of the absence of reciprocal liberty from the High Court and the CESTAT.

Analysis: The writ petition was dismissed because the original adjudication order was treated as final after withdrawal of the earlier civil appeals, while the CESTAT declined restoration because the High Court had not granted liberty to seek recall. This left the appellants without an opportunity to present their case on merits before any appellate forum. The right of appeal is a valuable remedy, and an aggrieved party should have at least one appellate forum to address its grievance. The procedural difficulties arose from efforts to restore the appeal and could be resolved by permitting pursuit of the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The appellants are entitled to pursue their statutory appeal before the CESTAT, which must decide it on merits within the stipulated period.

Issues: Whether an order determining that it is a fit case to issue a reassessment notice can stand where the assessee, despite seeking it, was not afforded a personal hearing under Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 148A requires that the assessee be afforded an opportunity of being heard before the determining order is made. Service of a show-cause notice and consideration of a written reply do not, by themselves, satisfy the requirement of a personal hearing where such hearing has been sought. The absence of that opportunity breached the statutory mandate and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order determining the case fit for issuance of reassessment notice was invalid and was set aside; fresh proceedings may be undertaken only after affording the assessee a personal hearing.

Issues: Whether brought-forward loss originally arising from weighted scientific-research deduction under section 35(2AB) could be set off after the assessee opted for the concessional regime under section 115BAA, to the extent of the actual underlying expenditure independently allowable under other provisions.

Analysis: Section 115BAA(2) excludes set-off of losses attributable to specified incentive deductions, including weighted deduction under section 35(2AB). The eligibility and true character of a carried-forward loss are nevertheless determinable in the assessment year in which its set-off is claimed; the earlier treatment of the expenditure does not preclude examination of its independent allowability. The forfeiture of the additional weighted component does not bar deduction of actual scientific-research expenditure otherwise allowable under sections 35(1)(i), 35(1)(iv) or 37(1), absent an express statutory prohibition. The concessional regime restricts specified incentives and exemptions, not actual expenditure independently deductible under the Act.

Conclusion: The underlying actual expenditure is eligible in principle to be considered for deduction under sections 35(1)(i), 35(1)(iv) and/or 37(1), and the corresponding brought-forward loss may be set off after verification of the statutory conditions, without allowing the additional weighted deduction under section 35(2AB).

Issues: Whether the assessee's eligibility for benefits under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement must be freshly adjudicated before determining the taxability in India of capital gains arising from redemption of equity-oriented mutual fund units.

Analysis: A Tax Residency Certificate is an eligibility condition for treaty relief but is not conclusive where treaty abuse or lack of commercial substance is alleged. The Revenue bears the burden of identifying and establishing an abusive arrangement before invoking a substance-over-form inquiry. The suspension of the licence of the assessee's management shareholder, regulatory action involving its sister concern, and uncertainty regarding the authority responsible for investment and redemption decisions warranted factual verification on treaty entitlement. The human-probabilities approach permits scrutiny beyond the apparent form of transactions. Principles of natural justice require an effective opportunity to address the material, allegations, and applicability of the anti-abuse framework.

Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to India-Mauritius DTAA benefits and the consequential taxability of the gains were remitted for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.

Issues: Whether prolonged incarceration caused by unexplained failure to file chargesheets in the scheduled offences, and the resulting absence of a realistic prospect of completing the money-laundering trial within a reasonable time, justified constitutional relief notwithstanding the twin conditions for bail.

Analysis: The offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 depends upon the existence of proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Although proceedings under that Act may continue independently, their final determination requires establishment of the scheduled offence. The prolonged non-filing of chargesheets in the scheduled offences, without explanation, made commencement and completion of those trials in the foreseeable future unrealistic. The resulting delay also precluded completion of the money-laundering trial within a reasonable time. Continued detention for an extended period, without delay attributable to the accused, would defeat the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; the statutory conditions in Section 45 cannot operate as a means for unreasonably prolonged incarceration.

Conclusion: The constitutional protection under Article 21 warranted relief notwithstanding the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, as there was no reasonable prospect of completion of the scheduled-offence and money-laundering trials within a reasonable time.

Issues: Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be initiated solely on material found in a search under Section 132, without a satisfaction note and without independent material, instead of proceeding under Section 153C.

Analysis: The reopening was founded exclusively on incriminating material obtained during searches conducted on other entities. The special search-assessment mechanism under Section 153C governs assessment or reassessment of an other person on such material. Recording of a satisfaction note on the search material is a jurisdictional precondition, and recourse to Sections 147 and 148 is available only where independent material, apart from the search material, supports escapement of income. No satisfaction note or independent material existed in the present case.

Conclusion: Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based exclusively on search material without the statutory satisfaction note and independent material, was impermissible and without jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether redemption of units of equity-oriented mutual funds constitutes alienation of "shares" under Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement
(ii) Whether treaty entitlement, including Article 27A and the evidentiary effect of a Tax Residence Certificate, could be tested on alleged absence of commercial substance and regulatory non-compliance

Issue (i): Whether redemption of units of equity-oriented mutual funds constitutes alienation of "shares" under Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Analysis: Article 13(3A) is confined to gains from alienation of shares. Units of equity-oriented mutual funds and shares are legally distinct securities. Following the prior-year decision on the same question, redemption of such mutual-fund units was distinguished from alienation of shares. The claimed residual treaty treatment under Article 13(4) remains subject to the fresh determination of treaty entitlement.

Conclusion: Redemption of equity-oriented mutual-fund units does not constitute alienation of shares under Article 13(3A), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether treaty entitlement, including Article 27A and the evidentiary effect of a Tax Residence Certificate, could be tested on alleged absence of commercial substance and regulatory non-compliance

Analysis: Section 90(4) makes a Tax Residence Certificate an eligibility condition but not conclusive proof of treaty entitlement where the statutory anti-abuse framework is attracted. The Revenue bears the burden to identify and establish treaty abuse before applying substance over form. The Revenue could rely on the subsequent Supreme Court decision and relevant material bearing on control, decision-making, regulatory compliance and commercial substance, since those matters remained within the subject matter of the appeal and did not entail enhancement. The material noted required factual scrutiny but did not, by itself, establish that limited physical presence invariably negates treaty residence. Natural justice required an effective opportunity to address the material, the alleged tax-avoidance arrangement and the applicability of Article 27A.

Conclusion: A Tax Residence Certificate alone does not preclude a factual inquiry into treaty abuse and commercial substance; entitlement to treaty relief and applicability of Article 27A remain for fresh determination by the Assessing Officer after adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The characterization of mutual-fund redemptions under Article 13(3A) stands resolved in the assessee's favour, while treaty relief depends on a fresh factual examination of Article 27A, commercial substance and alleged treaty abuse.

Issues: (i) Whether the show-cause notice was legally sustainable when it classified the activity as business auxiliary service in the post-negative-list regime and invoked the extended period without evidence of intent to evade tax; (ii) Whether conversion of plastic granules supplied by the principal manufacturer into PET bottles and jars under job work amounted to manufacture and was consequently outside service-tax liability.

Issue (i): Whether the show-cause notice was legally sustainable when it classified the activity as business auxiliary service in the post-negative-list regime and invoked the extended period without evidence of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 introduced the negative-list regime from 1 July 2012, while Section 65B(44) defined taxable service. Classification of the activity as business auxiliary service for the relevant post-negative-list period was therefore found unsustainable. Further, no evidence established any intent to evade tax so as to justify the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was void ab initio, and the extended period of limitation was unavailable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether conversion of plastic granules supplied by the principal manufacturer into PET bottles and jars under job work amounted to manufacture and was consequently outside service-tax liability.

Analysis: Under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, manufacture includes processes resulting in a distinct marketable product. Processing plastic granules into PET bottles and jars produced goods distinct from the input and amounted to manufacture. Such job work fell within the manufacture-related exclusion under Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994. Notification No. 25/2012-ST, applicable to taxable services, could not be applied to this manufacturing activity; the area-based excise exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. remained applicable.

Conclusion: The job work constituted manufacture and was not taxable as a service. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned service-tax demand could not be sustained because the activity was manufacturing job work covered by the negative-list exclusion and the notice was also issued by wrongly invoking extended limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A job-work process that converts supplied raw materials into distinct marketable goods amounts to manufacture and cannot be subjected to service tax under the negative-list regime.

Issues: Whether the extended period for recovery of customs duty under Section 28(4) could be invoked in the absence of evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement by the importer.

Analysis: The importer had furnished the certificate of origin and other import documents, which were accepted at the time of import. Recovery proceedings were initiated nearly five years later, but the show-cause notice and the grounds of appeal contained no documentary evidence establishing collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The findings that the extended limitation provision was inapplicable remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable.