Issues: Whether interest on the refund of a customs investigation deposit should be enhanced from 6% to 12% per annum.

Analysis: The investigation deposit was treated as a pre-deposit carrying interest from the date of deposit. The applicable statutory notifications prescribed interest at 6%. A statutory tribunal cannot go beyond those notifications or exercise the writ jurisdiction available to High Courts. Decisions awarding higher interest were distinguished on their legal and factual basis.

Conclusion: Enhancement to 12% was denied; interest remains at 6%. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal cannot award interest on a refunded customs pre-deposit at a rate exceeding that prescribed by an operative statutory notification.

Issues: Whether personal penalties were leviable on customs officers for alleged abetment of fraudulent exports.

Analysis: Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires mens rea and a positive, deliberate act of abetment rendering goods liable to confiscation. Negligence or administrative oversight alone does not establish penal abetment. No material established collusion or personal benefit. The principal clearance preceded the cautionary alert, and the officers cooperated with the investigation, including prompt disclosure of that clearance.

Conclusion: Personal penalties under Section 114 were not leviable on either officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty on a customs officer for abetment under Section 114 requires mens rea and deliberate abetment; negligence or administrative oversight alone is insufficient.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the show cause notice.

Analysis: The extended period under the Customs Act, 1962 requires circumstances such as collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The importer had explained the nature and description of the goods before the notice, and departmental officials had visited its premises and collected information. The authorities were aware of the relevant facts but did not act within the normal period. A wholly time-barred notice raises a threshold jurisdictional question, and an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be cured on appeal.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unjustified, and the notice was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior departmental knowledge and subsequent inaction do not justify invocation of the extended limitation period absent collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Issues: The tariff classification of two-ton split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit.

Analysis: The adopted Larger Bench ruling applies the principle that a specific tariff entry takes precedence over a generic entry. The tariff also distinguishes split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit from those without one.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under tariff item 8415 82 10.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific tariff entry takes precedence over a generic entry when classifying goods described by both.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of individual residential houses on purchasers' plots is liable to service tax as construction of a residential complex; (ii) Whether abatement is available on construction and sale of residential flats.

Issue (i): Whether construction of individual residential houses on purchasers' plots is liable to service tax as construction of a residential complex.

Analysis: Before 1 July 2012, the statutory definition of a residential complex required buildings with more than twelve residential units, common areas and specified facilities within an approved layout. The purchasers had acquired separately demarcated plots and separately engaged construction of individual houses. From 1 July 2012, the exemption covered a self-contained single residential unit outside a residential complex. The agreements, title documents and approved plans were material; common gates and amenities alone did not establish that the individual construction formed part of an integrated complex. The Board's clarification supported the distinction.

Conclusion: The demand on construction of individual houses is unsustainable for both periods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether abatement is available on construction and sale of residential flats.

Analysis: The applicable notifications prescribed different abatements and conditions across the relevant periods. The flat agreements provided for consolidated consideration encompassing the flat and an undivided interest in the land. The absence of a separate monetary allocation for land did not establish separate recovery or exclusion of its value. An unreconciled allocation of corner and development charges did not, by itself, disqualify the construction consideration from abatement.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to 67% abatement for April to June 2010, 75% for July 2010 to June 2012, and the prescribed abatement thereafter, subject to the applicable conditions and verification of unit specifications.

Final Conclusion: Liability on the flats remains subject to quantification after applicable abatements and credit for tax paid. Penalties are set aside, while payment of the accepted tax liability on preferential location or development services remains subject to verification.

Ratio Decidendi: The location of an independently contracted single residential unit within a gated layout, without more, does not establish construction of a taxable residential complex.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on inputs could be denied on the ground that the suppliers' processes did not amount to manufacture.

Analysis: The definition of manufacture includes processes incidental or ancillary to completing a manufactured product. The suppliers' operations involved bonding layers, including a printed layer, followed by curing, slitting and cutting into customer-specific packaging material. Unlike mere lamination, those operations produced material with a distinct name, character and use.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the credit; its denial, recovery with interest and the equivalent penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Conversion of laminated or metallised sheets into packaging material with a distinct name, character and use constitutes manufacture; Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely on the contrary premise.

Issues: (i) Whether refund claims may cover tax periods across financial years; (ii) whether the deemed export refund claim was within limitation; (iii) whether the required Form A prior intimation was furnished; (iv) whether the supplier was eligible for refund despite the alleged duplicate claim by the recipient.

Issue (i): Whether refund claims may cover tax periods across financial years.

Analysis: The circular governing refund applications permits clubbing successive tax periods, and the subsequent circular withdrew the restriction on bunching claims across financial years.

Conclusion: Claims may cover tax periods across financial years. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deemed export refund claim was within limitation.

Analysis: Section 54 prescribes a two-year period from the relevant date, which for deemed exports is the date of furnishing the return relating to the supplies. The application concerned supplies made between December 2023 and May 2024; the earlier period entered in the form did not add earlier supplies to the claim.

Conclusion: The claim was within limitation. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the required Form A prior intimation was furnished.

Analysis: The applicable circular requires prior intimation to the supplier and the jurisdictional officers. The record contained the recipient's Form A and an email forwarding it before the first supply; its filing was not disputed.

Conclusion: The required prior intimation was furnished. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the supplier was eligible for refund despite the alleged duplicate claim by the recipient.

Analysis: Rule 89 permits a supplier to claim deemed export refund where the recipient has not availed input tax credit and furnishes the requisite undertaking. The recipient's undertakings and declaration addressed the five invoices, while no recipient refund application or supporting material was identified.

Conclusion: The supplier was eligible for the refund, and the alleged duplicate claim did not justify rejection. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund of Rs. 77,188 is admissible, together with any statutory interest payable under Section 56.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for a deemed export refund is determined by reference to the return relating to the supplies claimed, not merely by the period entered in the application.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.

Issues: Whether the Revenue could pursue an appeal below the monetary limit under the exception for information received from law enforcement agencies.

Analysis: The applicable 2018 circular excepted certain cases based on information from external law enforcement agencies from the monetary limit for Revenue appeals. A binding ruling on identical facts treated the Sales Tax Department as outside that exception. The 2024 circular was issued after the Tribunal's decision and was not applicable.

Conclusion: The exception does not apply to information received from the Sales Tax Department, and no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi: Information received from the Sales Tax Department does not invoke the law enforcement agency exception to the monetary limit under the applicable 2018 circular.

Issues: (i) Classification of brown rice protein powder under tariff item 3504 0099 or 2106 1000; (ii) applicability of the extended limitation period; (iii) confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for the claimed misclassification.

Issue (i): Classification of brown rice protein powder under tariff item 3504 0099 or 2106 1000.

Analysis: Revenue bears the burden of proving a different classification. The technical opinion identified cereal proteins in the powder and was not rebutted by testing or a counter-expert opinion. The HSN explanatory notes distinguish cereal proteins from textured protein substances; the stated 90% protein content for vegetable isolates is a general observation, not a mandatory threshold for cereal proteins. Rule 3 prefers a specific description, while Rule 4 applies only where the preceding rules cannot determine classification. Foreign customs rulings are not binding under Indian customs law.

Conclusion: The classification analysis supports tariff item 3504 0099 in favour of the assessee, but a subsequent finding states tariff item 2106 1000 instead.

Issue (ii): Applicability of the extended limitation period.

Analysis: The goods were correctly described and the declared classification was known to the department. The dispute involved interpretation of tariff entries and explanatory notes, without suppression or wilful misstatement.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period is invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for the claimed misclassification.

Analysis: Confiscation and penalties were based on the declared tariff classification, not an incorrect description or value. The goods were unavailable for confiscation, and the classification dispute involved no mala fide conduct.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The differential duty demand, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the impugned determination do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue bears the evidential burden of displacing an importer's classification and cannot discharge it by substituting subjective assumptions for an unrebutted technical opinion.

Issues: Whether the court-directed deposit was refundable with interest or barred by the limitation applicable to customs duty refunds.

Analysis: The cash deposit and bank guarantee secured release of the goods before assessment by the proper officer. A bank guarantee is not a payment of customs duty, and the amounts secured were directed toward prospective duty liability. The adopted precedents distinguish deposits from duty payments for purposes of statutory refund limitation.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of Rs. 18,91,396 with applicable interest from the date of deposit until refund; the statutory time limit for duty refunds does not apply.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount deposited under court directions toward prospective customs duty liability, before assessment, is not a payment of customs duty subject to the statutory limitation for duty refunds.

Issues: (i) Whether reasonable belief existed for seizure and shifting the burden of proof; (ii) Whether the evidence established the smuggled character of the gold and justified confiscation and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether reasonable belief existed for seizure and shifting the burden of proof.

Analysis: Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires reasonable belief founded on objective material available at seizure, rather than suspicion. The gold bore no identifiable foreign markings, and its 99.5% purity was not distinctive of foreign origin. An unexplained possession of gold and its purity alone did not provide an objective basis for the belief.

Conclusion: Reasonable belief was absent, and the burden under Section 123 did not shift to the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established the smuggled character of the gold and justified confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The Department retained the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggling. The retracted statements lacked independent corroboration, follow-up searches yielded no incriminating material, and the statements omitted material details of the alleged smuggling. The requirements of Section 138B for reliance on statements were not met.

Conclusion: The alleged smuggling was not established; confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The Department remained responsible for establishing the foreign origin and smuggled character of the gold.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden under Section 123 cannot shift without reasonable belief based on objective material at seizure; where that burden remains with the Department, uncorroborated retracted statements cannot alone establish the smuggled character of unmarked gold.

Issues: Whether objections to a creditor's locus, maintainability and limitation must be adjudicated before appointment of a resolution professional in proceedings against a personal guarantor.

Analysis: Under Sections 95 to 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the resolution professional examines the application and submits a recommendatory report. Judicial adjudication occurs when the adjudicating authority decides whether to accept or reject the application under Section 100. The procedure for an application filed by a debtor under Section 94 was distinguished from a creditor's application under Section 95.

Conclusion: The objections are to be adjudicated at the Section 100 stage, not before appointment of the resolution professional. The underlying objections remain open for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In a creditor's application under Section 95, objections to locus, maintainability and limitation are adjudicated under Section 100 after the resolution professional submits a report.

Issues: (i) Whether the insolvency application was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether non-compliance with the MSME revival framework precluded admission of the insolvency application.

Issue (i): Whether the insolvency application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation assessment took account of the instrument acknowledging the debt and multiple settlement proposals admitting liability.

Conclusion: The insolvency application was within limitation, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the MSME revival framework precluded admission of the insolvency application.

Analysis: The MSME revival framework requires a borrower seeking its benefit to substantiate its status and invoke the prescribed procedure. The corporate debtor's MSME status had expired, no response claiming the framework's benefit was given to the statutory demand notice, and no prescribed application was made. The status claim was raised belatedly without supporting registration evidence; letters produced for the first time on appeal did not establish compliance. The insolvency assessment concerned debt and default, with the recorded default exceeding the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The MSME revival framework did not preclude admission of the insolvency application, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor remains in insolvency resolution, with precise quantification of the claim left to the resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated and unsupported claim to MSME status, without invocation of the prescribed revival framework, does not bar insolvency proceedings founded on established debt and default.

Issues: Whether the remand order should be recalled for non-impleadment of the enforcement authority and for challenges concerning attached properties.

Analysis: The remand order directed reconsideration of the resolution plan without setting aside the provisional attachment or adjudicating the enforcement authority's rights. The authority learned of the order while a statutory appeal remained available but did not pursue it; the subsequent plan approval was also not challenged. Recall jurisdiction does not extend to rehearing the merits or granting a fresh substantive declaration, and an unchallenged approved resolution plan acquires finality.

Conclusion: No grounds for recall were established, and the declaration sought was outside recall jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall jurisdiction cannot be used to obtain a rehearing or a substantive declaration on merits, particularly where the order did not adjudicate the applicant's rights and a statutory appeal was available.

Issues: (i) Exemption for dam protection and flood security works; (ii) exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction; (iii) exemption for construction and improvement of public roads; (iv) exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office; (v) reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments; (vi) reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments; (vii) reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses; (viii) reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions; and (ix) invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Exemption for dam protection and flood security works.

Analysis: Entry 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers specified construction and repair services relating to canals, dams and other irrigation works supplied to government. The records connected the ghat construction with prevention of dam erosion and the flood protection work with the extended irrigation department contract.

Conclusion: Both works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction.

Analysis: The relevant exemption under Entry 12(a) had been withdrawn before the contract. A larger bench ruling established that payment of service tax by the main contractor does not itself exempt a subcontractor; earlier conflicting decisions were relevant to limitation.

Conclusion: The subcontract was not exempt and was taxable in principle, against the assessee, subject to the limitation finding.

Issue (iii): Exemption for construction and improvement of public roads.

Analysis: Entry 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers construction or repair of roads for use by the general public. The evidence addressed the public character of the riverfront pathway, neighbourhood and approach roads, and connected the other payments with road construction or improvement.

Conclusion: The road-related works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office.

Analysis: Entry 12A(a) covers specified work, including repair and renovation, on qualifying civil structures supplied to a governmental authority. The recipient was a governmental authority and the interior decoration was treated as repair of a civil structure.

Conclusion: The interior decoration qualifies for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments.

Analysis: Reverse charge applies to qualifying goods transport agency services. Supplier invoice amounts and loading and unloading expenses were distinguished from payments for those services; a payment to a freight carrier was identified as taxable.

Conclusion: The non-transport payments are not liable on that basis; the identified freight-carrier payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vi): Reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST provides for reverse charge on services supplied by an advocate to a business entity. Payments to other professionals and for incidental expenses were distinguished from the identified advocate payment.

Conclusion: The other professional and incidental payments are not liable as advocate services; the advocate payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vii): Reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses.

Analysis: The burden of proof rested on the revenue to establish that the payments were for manpower supply or works contract services. No corresponding contracts were identified, and the demands rested on assumptions drawn from accounting descriptions.

Conclusion: The demands on labour and subcontract expenses cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions.

Analysis: Government services were taxable under the applicable negative-list framework and reverse-charge notification. No transaction granting a right to use natural resources was identified, and one deducting authority was neither government nor a local authority.

Conclusion: The demand on royalty deductions cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The disputes involved interpretation of service tax provisions. Returns had been regularly filed, the information came from the assessee's books, and no fraud or suppression was established.

Conclusion: The extended period is unavailable and the entire demand is time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service tax demand or related penalty survives for the period, although the medical college subcontract and identified transport and advocate payments were taxable in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: A reverse-charge service tax demand cannot be sustained solely on accounting descriptions or assumptions without proof of the taxable service.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the special leave petition was disposed of with liberty to prefer a statutory appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents; (ii) Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Issue (i): Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Analysis: Inspection and verification are distinct from the powers to seize goods and impose penalties. Freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 informs the limits of transit-state penal jurisdiction. The goods originated and were destined outside the transit state, with no tax incidence arising there; a perceived documentary deficiency could be referred to the jurisdictional authorities in the origin or destination state.

Conclusion: No. The transit-state authorities lacked jurisdiction to seize the goods and impose the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Analysis: Section 129 addresses deliberate tax evasion during transit, including movement of untaxed or unaccounted goods and use of fake bills. Valid tax invoices and e-way bills covered the outward movement; the date mismatch concerned a revenue-neutral internal accounting sequence between registrations of the same business.

Conclusion: No. The internal invoice-date mismatch did not justify the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty demand is quashed, and any penalty or security collected is refundable with interest in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit-state authority may inspect an interstate consignment but cannot exercise penal jurisdiction under Section 129 where the supply originates and ends outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.