Issues: Whether the 10% bank guarantee condition for provisional release of the seized goods should be maintained.

Analysis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits provisional release subject to conditions. Applicable decisions in similar cases treated diesel fraction as a broad category and cloud point alone as insufficient to establish the nature of the cargo. The test reports were not definitive that the distillate oil was restricted diesel. End-use certificates were already on record; complete certification and a bond were required safeguards.

Conclusion: The bank guarantee condition is set aside. The guarantee is to be returned upon submission of all end-use certificates and provision of a bond.

Issues: Whether the seizure and confiscation of foreign-origin gold were sustainable in light of the domestic purchase records and the statutory burden of proof.

Analysis: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 places the burden of proving that gold is not smuggled on the possessor or claimant where it is seized under a reasonable belief of smuggling. GST-system invoices and trading records showed recent purchases of gold matching the seized bars in purity; the courier's statement and delivery records supported the preceding supply link. The authenticity of the invoices and the supply of goods were not challenged, and the department did not verify the supply chain with the suppliers. Foreign-origin bullion could also enter domestic circulation through authorised channels.

Conclusion: The seizure and confiscation could not be sustained. The assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where undisputed purchase invoices and accounting records establish a matching supply of foreign-origin gold, the evidentiary burden shifts to the customs authority to investigate and rebut that explanation; foreign origin alone does not establish smuggling.

Issues: Whether penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable for handling import documents and obtaining delivery orders.

Analysis: Section 112 addresses acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation, including their abetment; Section 114AA addresses the knowing or intentional use of materially false documents. The adopted precedents require proof of knowledge of the offending nature of the goods or their misdeclaration. Repetitive handling of documents alone does not establish such knowledge, and verification of document authenticity or consignment contents is not ordinarily required.

Conclusion: Both penalties were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Repetitive handling of import documents alone, without proof of knowledge of the offending goods or their misdeclaration, does not establish liability to penalties for abetment of improper import or knowing use of false documents.

Issues: Whether the security required for provisional release of the seized perishable goods was proportionate.

Analysis: Under the provisional-release framework, revenue protection must be balanced against the risk of deterioration of perishable goods. A full-value bond was available and certificates of origin and other documents had been produced, while the bank guarantee amounted to approximately 132% of the goods' value. Origin and duty entitlement remained subject to investigation and adjudication.

Conclusion: The bank guarantee was reduced to 20% of the duty amount involved, with a bond retained. The merits remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional-release security for perishable goods must be proportionate, balancing revenue protection against the risk of deterioration and taking account of the bond and available documentary evidence.

Issues: Whether a creditor with an independent claim below the insolvency threshold was entitled to intervene in another creditor's insolvency proceeding or its settlement-based withdrawal.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prescribes the threshold for initiating insolvency proceedings; Section 9 concerns an operational creditor's application and Section 12A governs withdrawal. Under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the relevance of a person's presence to effective adjudication and the potential effect on that person's rights are material to intervention. The appellant's claim was distinct from the initiating creditor's claim and remained below the threshold even with interest. The settlement would bind the parties inter se without affecting the appellant's independent rights. Intervention confers a right to be heard, not an independent right to advance pleadings or claim relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a necessary party and was not entitled to intervene. Its independent claim remained available to be pursued through appropriate civil proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A creditor with an independent claim below the insolvency threshold is not a necessary party to another creditor's insolvency or settlement-withdrawal proceeding where its independent rights are unaffected, and cannot use intervention to circumvent that threshold.

Issues: Whether an insolvency appeal filed without a certified copy was competent when the copy was sought only after the outer limitation period and exemption and condonation were requested.

Analysis: Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prescribes 30 days for an appeal, with a maximum further 15 days for sufficient cause. Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 requires a certified copy, while exemption under Rule 14 is discretionary. Applying the governing precedents, the obligation to apply for a certified copy within limitation is not confined to cases seeking exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The copy here was sought only after the outer limitation period, and the claimed earlier attempt was unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The appeal was incompetent and non-est; exemption and condonation were refused.

Ratio Decidendi: An insolvency appeal filed without a certified copy is incompetent where the copy was not sought within limitation and no valid exemption was granted; exemption is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right.

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition of rights shares contravened the foreign-exchange regulations; (ii) whether non-supply of the adjudicating authority's opinion vitiated the inquiry; (iii) whether the penalty was disproportionate.

Issue (i): Whether the acquisition of rights shares contravened the foreign-exchange regulations.

Analysis: Regulation 6 made a rights issue to a non-resident dependent on the existing shares having been acquired and held in accordance with the regulations. Under the Tribunal's reading of Regulation 3, the record did not show that the initial shares had been acquired in compliance with the requirement of an application for Reserve Bank permission.

Conclusion: The rights-share acquisition contravened the applicable foreign-exchange provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the adjudicating authority's opinion vitiated the inquiry.

Analysis: Rule 4 requires the adjudicating authority to form an opinion before proceeding with an inquiry. The Tribunal applied the requirement to supply recorded reasons when sought following objections, but found no record of objections having been raised upon the initial notice.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the opinion did not vitiate the inquiry.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty was disproportionate.

Analysis: The transactions were conducted through banking channels without suppression. The initial acquisition and the rights issue were separated by several years, and no action had been taken at the time of the initial acquisition.

Conclusion: The penalty was disproportionate and was reduced to Rs. 92,94,250.

Final Conclusion: The contravention remains established, with the monetary liability reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: A rights issue to a non-resident depends on the existing shares having been acquired and held in accordance with the applicable foreign-exchange regulations.

Issues: Whether the attachment of the appellant's bank balance as proceeds of crime was supported by material beyond suspicion.

Analysis: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the challenge concerned the connection between the attached funds and proceeds of crime. The investigative material included the managing director's recorded statement and an admitted amount payable to an entity controlled by the principal accused. The entity had not pursued recovery, while the appellant sought release of the funds for transfer to it. The appellant's description of the funds as working capital was also inconsistent with its admission that the amount was payable to that entity.

Conclusion: The attachment was supported by material beyond suspicion, and the funds were treated as proceeds of crime involved in money laundering.

Issues: Whether the reimbursed cost of diesel procured for service recipients forms part of the taxable value of the services provided.

Analysis: The diesel was procured as agent for the service recipients, remained their property and was reimbursed separately from the service charges. Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 links the gross amount charged to the taxable service provided. The adopted Supreme Court reasoning treats Rule 5 as extending beyond that statutory mandate, and the adopted tribunal precedent applies the same valuation principle to reimbursed diesel costs.

Conclusion: The reimbursed diesel cost is excluded from the taxable value. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reimbursement for goods procured on behalf of a service recipient is not part of taxable service value where it is not consideration for the service provided.

Issues: (i) Classification and export treatment of engineering services relating to real estate in India; (ii) service tax on reimbursable expenses; (iii) service tax demand based on debtors reconciliation; (iv) invocation of the extended limitation period.

Issue (i): Classification and export treatment of engineering services relating to real estate in India.

Analysis: The services relating to construction design, quantities and costs fell within both consulting engineer and real estate consultant descriptions under the Finance Act, 1994. The specificity of description did not distinguish them, and there was no composite service to which the essential-character test applied. Section 65A therefore required classification by the statutory order of enumeration. The service recipient was located outside India.

Conclusion: The services were classifiable as consulting engineer services and qualified as exports without service tax liability, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Service tax on reimbursable expenses.

Analysis: For the disputed period before 14 May 2015, Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 taxed consideration for services. Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, insofar as it included reimbursable expenses, had been held ultra vires; Section 67 was subsequently amended.

Conclusion: The demand on reimbursable expenses was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Service tax demand based on debtors reconciliation.

Analysis: The reconciliation included service tax in billings but omitted corresponding service tax receipts, producing an apparent difference. The burden of proof lay on Revenue to establish greater consideration than declared using the relevant account figures; the service tax law did not prescribe the accounting method relied upon to reject the explanation.

Conclusion: The reconciliation-based demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Invocation of the extended limitation period.

Analysis: Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an established statutory ground for extended limitation. Incorrect self-assessment or non-payment alone does not establish wilful suppression or intent to evade. Returns had been filed, the underlying information was in the assessee's records, and Section 72 empowered the officer to obtain records and assess the tax.

Conclusion: Extended limitation was not available, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed demands and associated interest and penalty do not survive the findings on merits and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service is equally classifiable under two taxable categories and neither specificity nor the essential-character test resolves classification, the category appearing first in the statutory enumeration applies.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation was available for the service tax demands; (ii) whether any service tax remained recoverable on advances received for Mandap Keeper Service within the normal limitation period; (iii) whether the penalty for failure to obtain registration for additional services was sustainable; (iv) whether the penalty for failure to file statutory returns was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation was available for the service tax demands.

Analysis: Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 permits the extended period only upon establishment of the specified circumstances, including deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. Limitation is computed by reference to the relevant return periods. Earlier notices covered overlapping activities, and the later differential demand was substantially derived from financial records. Non-payment or non-filing of returns alone did not establish deliberate suppression. The penalty under Section 78 was founded on the same statutory circumstances.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable, and the demands beyond the normal period were barred. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether any service tax remained recoverable on advances received for Mandap Keeper Service within the normal limitation period.

Analysis: The normal-period demand concerned the timing of payment of service tax on advances. Payment particulars and interest challans were assessed against the amounts demanded.

Conclusion: The tax demand of Rs. 1,92,507 stood discharged, and no further tax was recoverable under that head. The tax and interest payments were to be credited and appropriated. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty for failure to obtain registration for additional services was sustainable.

Analysis: The registration obligation under Section 69 and Rule 4 was examined independently of limitation on tax recovery. Existing registration for certain services did not dispose of the specifically identified allegation of failure to register for additional taxable services.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(1)(a) was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalty for failure to file statutory returns was sustainable.

Analysis: The return-filing obligation under Section 70 and Rule 7 was independent of the extended limitation period. The record contained a specific finding of non-filing, and filing of the prescribed returns for the relevant periods was not demonstrated.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 77(2) was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The time-barred demands and the Section 78 penalty do not survive; the normal-period tax demand stands discharged, while the two independent procedural penalties remain.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of the extended service tax limitation period requires proof of the specified circumstances; non-payment or non-filing of returns alone does not establish deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether foreign-bank charges deducted from export proceeds attract service tax from the exporters under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: Under the applicable reverse charge regime, liability depends on establishing that the taxable service was rendered to the person sought to be taxed. The foreign banks operated through the buyers' banking arrangements and transmitted proceeds to the exporters' Indian banks. The Department produced no material establishing that the exporters engaged the foreign banks or had a direct service relationship with them. The economic incidence of a charge is distinct from the identity of the service recipient.

Conclusion: The disputed foreign-bank charges are not taxable in the exporters' hands. The consequential interest and penalties are also unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Deduction of foreign-bank charges from export proceeds does not by itself establish that the exporter received a taxable service for reverse charge purposes.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of Rs. 1,23,35,198 could be denied because the tax was not paid during the claim quarter; (ii) Whether refund of Rs. 3,25,779 could be denied for want of service approval or Form A-1; (iii) Whether the refund of Rs. 48,82,536 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether refund of Rs. 1,23,35,198 could be denied because the tax was not paid during the claim quarter.

Analysis: Notification No. 12/2013-ST permits only one refund claim per quarter but does not restrict that claim to tax paid in the same quarter. Amounts distributed by an input service distributor become available to the SEZ unit upon distribution. The reverse-charge payment stood on the same footing. Sections 26 and 51 of the Special Economic Zones Act protect the exemption against additional conditions not prescribed under SEZ law.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied solely because the tax was paid outside the claim quarter, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of Rs. 3,25,779 could be denied for want of service approval or Form A-1.

Analysis: The services appeared on the approved list, and their use for authorised operations was not disputed. The Form A-1 objection was outside the show cause notice. Rule 22 of the Special Economic Zones Rules does not prescribe that form as a condition of the exemption.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied for want of service approval or Form A-1, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the refund of Rs. 48,82,536 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: For common services paid for by the head office, the SEZ unit's entitlement to the distributed amount arises upon issue of the input service distributor invoice. The notification's limitation provision could not be applied by starting time before the distributed amount became claimable.

Conclusion: The refund was not time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to Rs. 1,26,60,977 in refund with admissible interest, subject only to verification that no part has already been refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions in a service-tax notification cannot curtail an SEZ exemption by imposing requirements beyond those prescribed under SEZ law.

Issues: Whether target-based and non-target-based incentives and claims received by a vehicle dealer are liable to service tax.

Analysis: Under the Finance Act, 1994, a service involves an activity carried out for another for consideration and includes declared services, but excludes a mere transfer of title in goods. The adopted reasoning distinguishes transaction-specific consideration for services from incentives linked to overall trading performance. Trade and quantity discounts, including discounts credited after purchase or reimbursed after sale to customers, relate to principal-to-principal trading transactions rather than a separate service.

Conclusion: The incentives and claims are not liable to service tax. The demand, interest and penalties, including the employee's penalty, are set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Trade discounts and incentives linked to principal-to-principal purchases and sales of goods are not consideration for a taxable service merely because they are calculated or credited after the transaction.

Issues: (i) Whether common input-service credit was admissible at one unit despite the absence of input service distributor registration; (ii) whether the extended limitation period and consequential interest and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether common input-service credit was admissible at one unit despite the absence of input service distributor registration.

Analysis: The common services were received by units under the same ownership, the credit was supported by records, and there was no finding of excess or double availment. The applicable credit-distribution rule had to be assessed as it stood during the relevant period; a subsequently introduced proportionate-distribution restriction could not be applied retrospectively. The applicable distinction was between substantive eligibility and a procedural registration lapse. The prior reversal of part of the credit, without prejudice, was not an admission of liability.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible and its denial was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period and consequential interest and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The entire demand fell outside the normal limitation period. Credit entries and invoices were available in the records, and the partial reversal had been communicated before the notice. Audit alone did not establish departmental knowledge of every entry, but invocation of the extended period required evidence of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement; mere erroneous availment was insufficient.

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

Final Conclusion: The substantive credit remained admissible, and recovery was independently barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Absence of input service distributor registration does not by itself defeat otherwise eligible and verifiable CENVAT credit.

Issues: (i) Whether duty-free inputs remained exempt when the goods manufactured from them failed quality testing and were destroyed without export. (ii) Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation despite the executed bond. (iii) Whether a penalty was imposable for non-fulfilment of the exemption conditions.

Issue (i): Whether duty-free inputs remained exempt when the goods manufactured from them failed quality testing and were destroyed without export.

Analysis: The exemption notifications and the bond required duty-free inputs to be used for manufacture and export. The inputs were used in manufacture, but the finished goods failed quality testing and were destroyed without intimation to the authorities. Exemption notifications are to be construed strictly.

Conclusion: The exemption was unavailable, and the duty demand with interest was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation despite the executed bond.

Analysis: The bond bound the assessee to pay duty and interest if the specified use and export conditions were not fulfilled. The obligation under the bond was continuing, and the normal limitation period did not apply to its enforcement.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a penalty was imposable for non-fulfilment of the exemption conditions.

Analysis: There was no element suggesting an intention to evade duty. The assessee had reversed the credit on duty-paid inputs with interest after the audit objection, and the exemption notifications required payment of duty and interest without mandating a penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The liability for duty and interest remains, but the penalty does not.

Ratio Decidendi: An export-oriented unit that fails to fulfil the export condition attached to duty-free inputs is liable under its bond for the duty foregone; enforcement of the continuing bond obligation is not barred by the normal limitation period.

Issues: (i) Whether an adjudication order is void merely because it was passed more than six months after notice; (ii) whether service tax on a factory-land lease premium qualifies for input service credit; (iii) whether admissible credit is recoverable because it was entered under another registration of the same person; and (iv) whether interest and penalty are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether an adjudication order is void merely because it was passed more than six months after notice.

Analysis: Section 73(4B) prescribes the six-month period where it is possible to comply, while requiring adjudication within a reasonable time. The reasonableness of the unexplained delay in this case was not determined.

Conclusion: The order was not void merely because it was passed after six months. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax on a factory-land lease premium qualifies for input service credit.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) retained its main definition covering services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture after the deletion of "setting up" from its inclusive part. Renting of immovable property was not excluded, and the leased land had a demonstrated nexus with manufacturing. Neither the absence of production when the credit was taken nor later factory registration defeated that nexus.

Conclusion: The lease service qualified as an input service. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether admissible credit is recoverable because it was entered under another registration of the same person.

Analysis: The lease lacked a nexus with the output services of the registration where it was recorded, but credit entitlement belonged to the same legal person as manufacturer. Input service distribution or entry at the factory was the proper course; the absence of distributor registration was a curable irregularity. Account balances remained sufficient to cover the lease credit until reversal, and limited deemed use under the then-applicable opening-balance rule did not make otherwise admissible cross-utilisation impermissible.

Conclusion: The credit was not recoverable merely because it was first entered under another registration of the same person. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest and penalty are sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 14 provided for interest where credit was both wrongly taken and utilised. The applicable penalty provisions required the prescribed notice or, under the earlier provisions, fraud, deliberate suppression or intent to evade. The credit was disclosed in a revised return, and no deliberate suppression or intent to evade was established. A penalty also cannot be based on a ground absent from the show cause notice.

Conclusion: Neither interest nor penalty was sustainable. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The admissible lease credit was not lost through its initial accounting under another registration of the same person. It cannot be taken again or refunded at that registration; the validity of fresh availment at the factory remains unadjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Deletion of "setting up" from the inclusive definition of input service does not exclude a factory-land lease satisfying the manufacturing nexus, and admissible credit is not wrongly taken solely because it is recorded under another registration of the same legal person.

Issues: (i) Whether a State may levy a surcharge calculated on valid sales tax under the former Entry 54 of List II. (ii) Whether the larger-bench reference requires further adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether a State may levy a surcharge calculated on valid sales tax under the former Entry 54 of List II.

Analysis: Article 246 and the former Entry 54 of List II governed State legislative competence to tax sales or purchases of goods. The subject of a tax is distinct from the measure used to calculate it. A surcharge computed as a percentage of sales tax varies with taxable turnover, not the dealer's income; a prohibition on passing it to purchasers does not change that character. Binding precedent had addressed a materially similar levy.

Conclusion: The former Entry 54 permitted a surcharge calculated on valid sales tax as an enhancement of that tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the larger-bench reference requires further adjudication.

Analysis: A larger-bench reference serves to resolve a genuine uncertainty in binding law. The perceived conflict concerned decisions dealing with different levies and legislative fields. A subsequent larger-bench decision displaced the premise that royalty was a tax, while the governing sales-tax precedent remained authoritative. The constitutional and statutory transition also limited the question's prospective significance.

Conclusion: No. The reference has become academic.

Concurring Opinion: Justice K. V. Viswanathan separately concluded that the governing sales-tax precedent was correctly decided and required no reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The settled principle governs the legislative-competence question; the individual matters remain pending for determination on their merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A surcharge calculated on valid sales tax retains the character of sales tax and falls within the same legislative taxing power.

Issues: (i) Whether a parent company is liable for its subsidiary's operational debt arising from a contract to which the parent was not a party. (ii) Whether the business transfer agreement and subsequent letter, part-payment and cheques transferred or acknowledged the subsidiary's debt as the parent company's operational debt.

Issue (i): Whether a parent company is liable for its subsidiary's operational debt arising from a contract to which the parent was not a party.

Analysis: A parent company and its subsidiary have separate corporate personalities. The underlying contract was signed by the subsidiary, and the record did not establish that the parent received the supplies giving rise to the claim.

Conclusion: No. The parent was not liable for the subsidiary's debt merely because of their corporate relationship. This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the business transfer agreement and subsequent letter, part-payment and cheques transferred or acknowledged the subsidiary's debt as the parent company's operational debt.

Analysis: The business transfer agreement excluded liabilities arising before the closing date and addressed contracts not novated by that date. The debit note concerned supplies from the preceding period, and the subsequent letter described the amount as owed by the subsidiary. The parent had also made a part-payment and issued post-dated cheques. Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be substituted for recovery or adjudication of a disputed commercial claim.

Conclusion: No. The alleged operational debt was not established as due from the parent, and admission of the insolvency application could not be sustained. This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor is released from the corporate insolvency resolution process and may function through its board of directors.

Ratio Decidendi: A parent company does not incur its subsidiary's operational debt merely through their corporate relationship, and a unilateral letter does not itself effect novation of the underlying contract.

Issues: Whether a direct appeal against a provisional attachment order is maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provisional attachment is subject to adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority, while the statutory appellate provision identifies the orders against which an appeal lies. The direction to treat the writ petition as an appeal required consideration in accordance with law, and the Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction outside the statutory framework.

Conclusion: A direct appeal against the provisional attachment order is not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain a direct appeal against a provisional attachment order where the statute does not confer such appellate jurisdiction.