Issues: Whether amounts deposited pursuant to judicial interim directions during a pending patent dispute constituted royalty or consideration for intellectual property rights services liable to service tax under the reverse-charge mechanism.

Analysis: The service-tax provisions invoked required a payment constituting consideration for taxable services. The interim deposits were made to secure interests and balance equities pending adjudication; no vested right to receive those amounts accrued to the patent holder, and the use of the patents or technologies had not been determined. Upon settlement and withdrawal of the suit, the interim directions stood vacated and the deposited sums were released. The subsequent settlement payment towards royalty was separately subjected to IGST under the taxation regime applicable at that time.

Conclusion: The interim deposits were neither royalty nor consideration for intellectual property rights services and were not liable to service tax.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where invoices named a third party as customer but identified the assessee as consignee and the inputs were received and recorded by the assessee; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked despite disclosure of the credit in statutory records and monthly returns.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible where invoices named a third party as customer but identified the assessee as consignee and the inputs were received and recorded by the assessee.

Analysis: Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 recognises invoices issued by registered dealers as valid documents for Cenvat credit. The invoices expressly identified the assessee as consignee and contained its registration details. Documentary material established that the inputs were physically received, entered in RG 23A records and used in manufacture. The naming of another entity as customer did not invalidate the invoices when receipt and correlation of inputs by the consignee were established.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible to the assessee; the denial of credit was unsustainable on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked despite disclosure of the credit in statutory records and monthly returns.

Analysis: The credit and relevant input details were recorded in RG 23A registers and reflected in monthly returns. These disclosures negated suppression of material facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit denial and consequential demand could not survive either on merits or on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because an invoice names a third party as customer where the assessee is identified as consignee and establishes actual receipt and statutory recording of the inputs.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on unverified Insight portal information without material linking the assessee to the alleged transaction or demonstrating application of mind.

Analysis: The notice and the order did not disclose any transaction details or material connecting the assessee with the alleged Angadiya transaction. The identical alleged escaped-income amount had been attributed to several ceramic dealers, while the beneficiary chart did not specify any amount attributable to the assessee. The information was neither verified nor supplied to the assessee, and the record did not demonstrate application of mind. Reassessment cannot rest on a roving and fishing inquiry based merely on portal information suggesting possible escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was invalid for want of verified material establishing a nexus between the assessee and the alleged escaped income.

Issues: Whether, after giving effect to the rectification deleting the negative working capital adjustment, the assessee's margin falls within the permissible arm's length range so that no transfer pricing adjustment survives.

Analysis: The rectification order directed deletion of the negative working capital adjustment, but the consequential appeal-effect order had not been issued. The determination of whether the revised margin falls within the permissible range required consideration while implementing that rectification.

Outcome: The Assessing Officer was directed to pass the appeal-effect order within 15 days, consider the assessee's claim regarding its revised margin, and afford an opportunity of hearing if a different conclusion is reached. Liberty was granted to seek revival of the appeal if aggrieved by the consequential order.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could reject the Discounted Cash Flow valuation adopted for determining fair market value of unquoted shares and substitute the Net Asset Value method for an addition under section 56(2)(viib).

Analysis: Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 permits valuation of unquoted equity shares through prescribed methods, including the Discounted Cash Flow method and the Net Asset Value method. The choice of a prescribed method rests with the assessee, though the valuation and its underlying assumptions remain open to scrutiny. Discounted Cash Flow valuation is necessarily based on future cash-flow estimates, management projections, growth assumptions, discount rates and business conditions prevailing on the valuation date. Doubts arising from past losses or reliance on management projections require examination of the inputs within the Discounted Cash Flow framework; they do not permit replacement of that method with the Net Asset Value method. No arithmetical error, factual inaccuracy, internal inconsistency, or foundational defect in the Discounted Cash Flow computation was established.

Conclusion: The substitution of the Discounted Cash Flow method with the Net Asset Value method was impermissible, and deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether Sections 42 and 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 governed the searches commenced at the airport and completed at a government hospital.
(ii) Whether deficient notices under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the absence of a fresh notice before body-cavity recovery, vitiated the recovery of contraband.
(iii) Whether alleged departures from Section 52-A, Standing Instruction No. 1/88, Standing Order No. 1/89, and the sampling rules rendered the seizure unreliable at the bail stage.
(iv) Whether the rigours applicable to commercial-quantity offences precluded bail despite prolonged pre-trial incarceration and lack of trial progress.

Issue (i): Whether Sections 42 and 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 governed the searches commenced at the airport and completed at a government hospital.

Analysis: Section 42 concerns information relating to contraband kept or concealed in a building, conveyance, or enclosed place, whereas Section 43 authorises seizure, detention, search, and arrest in a public place. An airport is a public place, and the government hospital where medically necessary recovery was completed also remained a public place. The search-and-seizure action was a continuous process and did not lose its character merely because medical assistance was required. In the cases founded on DRI intelligence, the information had also been recorded, transmitted to the superior officer, and followed by authorisation and reporting. Profiling based on prior experience was treated as personal knowledge rather than unrecorded third-party information.

Conclusion: The airport searches and medically completed recoveries were governed by Section 43, and non-compliance with Section 42 did not invalidate the action.

Issue (ii): Whether deficient notices under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the absence of a fresh notice before body-cavity recovery, vitiated the recovery of contraband.

Analysis: Section 50 requires meaningful communication of the right to be searched before an independent Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Some notices merely asked whether the person desired such a search, without conveying the statutory right; another notice improperly suggested a particular officer connected with the search team as a third option. Those notices were deficient, and the initial personal searches founded on them were affected. In two matters, however, the original notice validly conveyed the right and the subsequent personal search yielded nothing incriminating. Following admission that capsules were secreted inside the body and voluntary submission to medical action, Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 operated as an independent mechanism; a fresh Section 50 notice was unnecessary. In the medical-emergency cases, direct hospitalisation followed by judicial orders under Section 103 was prima facie justified to protect life and facilitate recovery. In the remaining defective-notice cases, the ejection and medically supervised seizure of capsules under judicially authorised Customs Act procedure supplied independent prima facie evidence of possession.

Conclusion: Although Section 50 was deficient or misleading in four matters, the medically supervised recovery under Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not prima facie invalidated, and the absence of a fresh Section 50 notice in the other two matters was not fatal.

Issue (iii): Whether alleged departures from Section 52-A, Standing Instruction No. 1/88, Standing Order No. 1/89, and the sampling rules rendered the seizure unreliable at the bail stage.

Analysis: Section 52-A and the applicable standing instructions or Rules 3 and 10 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 regulate classification, sampling, inventory, and disposal. The capsules were allegedly swallowed as one batch for a single journey, were similar in size, shape, and appearance, and contained homogeneous substances. The record reflected testing of either each capsule or a representative capsule, mixing of the homogeneous contents, inventory proceedings before a Magistrate, and chemical analysis confirming the narcotic substances. Delay in inventory certification and deviations from the prescribed sampling method are procedural irregularities; they do not by themselves invalidate the seizure or establish prejudice. Whether the procedures were fully complied with, and whether any irregularity impaired representative sampling, requires evidence at trial.

Conclusion: The asserted sampling and inventory defects did not furnish a sufficient basis at the bail stage to discredit the seizure or displace the statutory restrictions.

Issue (iv): Whether the rigours applicable to commercial-quantity offences precluded bail despite prolonged pre-trial incarceration and lack of trial progress.

Analysis: The material disclosed prima facie conscious possession and smuggling of commercial quantities, attracting the stringent bail standard. Nevertheless, four applicants had remained in custody for more than four years without sufficient trial progress. Continued unadvanced pre-trial detention was punitive, inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, and contrary to the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The two remaining applicants could not rely on prolonged incarceration, and the prima facie recovery and commercial-quantity allegations continued to attract the statutory restriction.

Conclusion: Prolonged and unadvanced pre-trial detention justified conditional bail for four applicants, while no equivalent relief was warranted for the other two applicants.

Final Conclusion: Defective personal-search notices and procedural sampling objections did not, at the preliminary stage, negate the independent medically supervised recovery of contraband; however, constitutional protection against punitive and prolonged under-trial detention required conditional relief where trials had not meaningfully progressed.

Ratio Decidendi: In body-packer seizures, defects in personal-search safeguards or sampling procedure do not alone negate prima facie possession where contraband is independently recovered through medically supervised Customs Act procedure, though prolonged unadvanced pre-trial detention may warrant bail to preserve the right to speedy trial.

Issues: (i) Whether the first food-sample test report could be relied upon when the sample was drawn by a customs officer; and (ii) Whether provisional release of the goods pending assessment was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the first food-sample test report could be relied upon when the sample was drawn by a customs officer.

Analysis: Regulations 5 and 10 of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017 require food samples to be drawn by an authorised officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Although Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers wide sampling powers, it must be read harmoniously with that statutory food-safety regime for edible imports. The first sample, having been drawn by a customs officer, could not be relied upon for the present purpose and stood superseded by the subsequent sample drawn by the authorised officer. The subsequent accredited-laboratory report confirmed conformity with the applicable standards.

Conclusion: The first test report was excluded from consideration, and reliance was placed on the subsequently drawn and tested sample.

Issue (ii): Whether provisional release of the goods pending assessment was justified.

Analysis: Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires recorded reasons indicating that goods are liable to confiscation. No seizure memo or reasons justifying continued retention were produced, and the goods had remained withheld on suspicion. The subsequent test report showed moisture content below 6%, which prima facie fell outside the moisture range treated as raw areca nut under the applicable advance-ruling framework. The assessment and classification remained matters for adjudication, but the absence of seizure and recorded grounds did not warrant withholding provisional release. A personal bond for differential duty or penalty could be sought at the proper officer's discretion.

Conclusion: Provisional release was sustained pending assessment, with discretion to require an appropriate personal bond.

Final Conclusion: Assessment and adjudication must proceed immediately in accordance with law, without any final determination of classification in these proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: For imported edible goods, Customs sampling powers must be exercised consistently with the prescribed food-safety sampling procedure, and provisional release cannot be withheld merely on suspicion where no recorded grounds support seizure or continued retention.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ challenge to the adequacy of the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the substituted pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued before 01.10.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the writ challenge to the adequacy of the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Determining whether the extensive adjudication order adequately addressed the assessee's contentions would require examination of facts and merits. Section 107 provides a statutory appellate remedy for such examination.

Conclusion: The challenge to the merits and adequacy of the adjudication order must be pursued through the statutory appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the substituted pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued before 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The show-cause notice had been issued before 01.10.2025, and the order imposed only penalty without any tax demand. The appellate remedy was therefore governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the date of issuance of the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The substituted requirement to deposit ten per cent of the disputed penalty does not apply to the assessee's appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: An appeal filed within two weeks must be considered under the pre-substitution pre-deposit regime applicable to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The pre-deposit regime governing a GST appeal is determined by the law applicable when the show-cause notice initiating the proceedings was issued; a subsequently substituted requirement does not govern proceedings initiated earlier.

Issues: (i) Whether GST is applicable to rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce; (ii) Whether GST on such rent is payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism or the Forward Charge Mechanism; (iii) What GST rate applies to the renting of such godowns.

Issue (i): Whether GST is applicable to rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce.

Analysis: Renting of godowns for consideration and the subsequent provision of storage and warehousing services are separate supplies. Although storage or warehousing of agricultural produce is exempt under Entry No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the exemption applies to the outward warehousing service and does not extend to the independent inward supply of renting non-residential godowns. Such renting is a taxable supply of real estate services.

Conclusion: GST is applicable on rent paid for hired godowns notwithstanding their exclusive use for exempt agricultural-produce warehousing, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GST on such rent is payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism or the Forward Charge Mechanism.

Analysis: Renting of non-residential godowns by registered suppliers is taxable under forward charge. Entry No. 5AB of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, requires a registered recipient to pay tax under reverse charge where the non-residential property is rented by an unregistered supplier; the entry applies from 10.10.2024.

Conclusion: Rent paid to unregistered persons for hired godowns from 10.10.2024 is taxable under reverse charge; rent charged by registered persons is taxable under forward charge, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): What GST rate applies to the renting of such godowns.

Analysis: Renting or leasing of non-residential property falls within real estate services under Entry No. 16(iii) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Conclusion: GST is payable at 18%, comprising 9% CGST and 9% SGST, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption available to storage and warehousing of agricultural produce does not alter the taxability of the distinct supply of renting hired godowns.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption of an outward supply does not exempt a separate inward supply; each supply must be classified and taxed independently under the applicable GST notification.

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Authority was required to await expiry of the statutory appeal period before deciding an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether rejection of the immunity application after a one-day notice complied with the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Authority was required to await expiry of the statutory appeal period before deciding an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 270AA(3) makes grant of immunity conditional upon fulfilment of the prescribed requirements and expiry of the appeal-filing period specified in Section 249(2)(b). The statutory scheme therefore precludes determination of the immunity application before that period expires.

Conclusion: The Assessing Authority was justified in awaiting expiry of the statutory appeal period before deciding the immunity application. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the immunity application after a one-day notice complied with the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 270AA(4) prohibits rejection without an opportunity of hearing. Notice issued on 28 July 2026 requiring appearance on 29 July 2026, followed by rejection on 30 July 2026, did not afford sufficient time to place records and substantiate the claim for immunity, and offended principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection of immunity without an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing was invalid. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The immunity applications must be determined after affording the assessees a meaningful hearing and considering their submissions and material in accordance with Section 270AA and principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Although an application for immunity under Section 270AA may be decided only after expiry of the statutory appeal period, its rejection is impermissible unless the assessee receives a real and effective opportunity of hearing.

Outcome: The recall application was allowed and the writ petition restored; the writ petition was thereafter closed with liberty to approach afresh on the same cause of action and challenge Section 147A, with the earlier protection continued for 90 days.

Issues: (i) Whether Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract remain classifiable as vegetable extracts under Heading 1302, rather than as food preparations under Heading 2106, of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the goods fall under the residual Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (i): Whether Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract remain classifiable as vegetable extracts under Heading 1302, rather than as food preparations under Heading 2106, of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff requires classification according to the heading terms and relevant notes. Heading 1302 covers vegetable extracts obtained from original vegetable material by solvents, including extracts concentrated and converted into powder, unless specialised post-extraction processing selectively increases or decreases particular compounds or compound classes beyond ordinary solvent extraction.

Analysis: The repeated extraction cycles were performed on the original pine bark and grape seeds to recover soluble botanical constituents before the extraction liquors were combined. No material established selective isolation, enrichment or depletion of particular constituents in Pine Bark Extract. For Grape Seed Extract, no technical evidence established that resin adsorption selectively fractionated compound classes; the recorded material showed recovery of the adsorbed organic fraction together. Concentration, drying, grinding, sieving and stated extraction ratios did not alter the goods' essential character as botanical extracts.

Analysis: Heading 2106 concerns food or dietary preparations put up as supplements to the normal diet. The goods were single-ingredient extracts imported in bulk as industrial inputs requiring further formulation, and were neither presented nor put up as finished dietary supplements for direct consumption. The food-safety regulatory framework corroborated the distinction between nutraceutical ingredients and completed nutraceutical products, without governing Customs tariff classification.

Conclusion: Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract are classifiable under Heading 1302 as vegetable extracts and not under Heading 2106; this finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods fall under the residual Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Under Heading 1302, specific tariff items apply to extracts of named plants or products. Neither Pine Bark Extract nor Grape Seed Extract is specifically enumerated under those entries. Following the tariff restructuring effective from 01.05.2026, the applicable residual entry for other vegetable extracts is Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39.

Conclusion: Both products are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 as "Other".

Final Conclusion: The imports are governed by the tariff treatment for residual vegetable extracts rather than that for residual food preparations.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of botanical extracts depends on their character as imported and on demonstrable selective post-extraction refinement, not merely their ultimate nutraceutical use; absent proof of specialised processing that selectively alters their constituent profile, bulk extracts requiring further formulation fall under Heading 1302 rather than Heading 2106.

Issues: Whether a further pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is required where the pre-deposit made under Section 107(6) exceeds the prescribed percentage of the tax remaining in dispute after reduction by the first appellate authority.

Analysis: Section 107(6) requires payment of a specified percentage of the disputed tax for a first appeal, while Section 112(8)(b) requires a further prescribed payment for an appeal to the Tribunal. The pre-deposit is a portion of the disputed tax and not an independent liability. The requirement cannot be mechanically applied where the tax in dispute has been substantially reduced in the first appeal and the amount already deposited equals or exceeds the applicable percentage of the surviving disputed tax. Insisting on an additional deposit in those circumstances would produce an anomalous and unworkable result.

Conclusion: No further pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) was required because the amount already deposited under Section 107(6) exceeded the prescribed requirement with reference to the reduced tax remaining in dispute.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 was justified where goods were transported under a second e-way bill generated after expiry of the original e-way bill.

Analysis: Rule 138 requires an e-way bill before movement of goods, and Rule 138(10) permits extension only within eight hours of its expiry; generation of a fresh e-way bill on the same invoice after that period was not authorised. The original e-way bill was not extended, while the second e-way bill was generated three days after expiry by inserting an additional zero in the invoice number. The record did not reliably establish the asserted vehicle breakdown, repair, or movement of goods from Orai to Kachora Ghat. The unexplained delay in covering the earlier route, followed by the rapid movement from Kachora Ghat and the changed loading location, constituted circumstantial evidence supporting an adverse inference. In civil proceedings under Section 129, the facts were assessable on the preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The second e-way bill was the product of fraud and deception, and the goods were transported with intent to evade tax; the Section 129 penalty was warranted, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue so as to justify revision under Section 263; (ii) Whether accumulated interest satisfied through allotment of equity shares was taxable despite cash-basis accounting and the exemption for conversion of debentures into shares.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue so as to justify revision under Section 263.

Analysis: Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 arises where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The reassessment accepted exclusion of the accumulated interest without proper application of the governing provisions or necessary inquiry into the interest component embedded in the equity-share allotment. Such lack of proper inquiry rendered the reassessment an erroneous and prejudicial order; no sustainable alternative view arose merely from acceptance of the assessee's explanation.

Conclusion: The exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was valid. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether accumulated interest satisfied through allotment of equity shares was taxable despite cash-basis accounting and the exemption for conversion of debentures into shares.

Analysis: The cash system of accounting under Section 145 does not defer income where accrued interest is discharged through allotment of equity shares having clear monetary value. Such allotment constitutes constructive receipt of the interest income. Claiming TDS credit under Section 199 while excluding the corresponding interest income was incompatible with the asserted non-taxability. The capital gains exemption under Section 47(x), confined to conversion of debentures into shares for purposes of Section 45, did not exempt the embedded interest income taxable under Section 56. The double taxation objection was rejected because interest brought to tax upon conversion forms part of the cost basis of the converted shares under Section 49(2A).

Conclusion: The accumulated interest represented by the equity-share allotment was taxable as interest income. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary remand for fresh determination remains operative, and matters arising in that assessment are to be addressed consistently with the rectification order.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment that overlooks interest income constructively received through settlement in valuable shares is erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, and a capital-gains exemption for conversion of debentures does not exempt that interest income.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax could be demanded again on rake/wagon loading services already taxed under the service provider's centralized registration; (ii) Whether transportation contracts with incidental loading were classifiable as Cargo Handling Services; and (iii) Whether the demand for 2014-15 could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether service tax could be demanded again on rake/wagon loading services already taxed under the service provider's centralized registration.

Analysis: Service tax on the rake/wagon loading value had already been discharged under the centralized Kolkata registration. The subsequent demand under the surrendered Odisha registration covered the same taxable service and value, without accounting for the tax already paid.

Conclusion: A second service-tax demand on the same rake/wagon loading service was impermissible, and the demand of Rs. 1,41,49,414 was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether transportation contracts with incidental loading were classifiable as Cargo Handling Services.

Analysis: The transportation and loading work was separately contracted and billed, and transportation constituted the predominant component of the overall consideration. Applying Section 66F(3)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994, the essential character of the activity was transportation; loading at a single point was incidental. No evidence established specialized cargo-handling activities. The applicable circulars also treat loading and similar ancillary activities undertaken in the course of road transportation as part of the principal transport service. Goods Transport Agency services involving consignment notes are taxable in the recipient's hands under reverse charge, while transportation without consignment notes falls within the negative list under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The services were classifiable as transportation services and not as Cargo Handling Services; the demand of Rs. 6,73,01,893 was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for 2014-15 could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The show-cause notice issued on 29 September 2020 was beyond the normal limitation period, which had expired by 30 September 2017. The proceedings were based on information available from income-tax returns and Form 26AS, and the dispute concerned classification of services. The requisite basis for invoking the extended period was therefore absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was unavailable, providing an independent ground to set aside the tax demand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not sustain the service-tax demands, interest, or penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transportation is the principal element of a composite arrangement and loading is merely ancillary, the service must be classified as transportation and cannot be taxed as Cargo Handling Service.