Issues: (i) Whether the disputed receipts represented genuine sale consideration or a benami transaction; (ii) whether reliance on a witness's statement without cross-examination violated natural justice; (iii) whether the income-tax appellate decision accepting a transaction as genuine displaced the benami determination.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed receipts represented genuine sale consideration or a benami transaction.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on same-day cash deposits and bank transfers, the intermediary controller's admissions concerning accommodation entries, and evidence of the flow of funds. It also identified discrepancies and inadequate corroboration in the invoices and other commercial records. The appellant did not provide cogent material rebutting the evidence of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The receipts formed part of a benami transaction, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on a witness's statement without cross-examination violated natural justice.

Analysis: Natural justice requires a fair opportunity to know, answer and rebut relied-upon material, but does not confer an automatic or absolute right to cross-examine every witness. The witness did not respond to repeated summons, and the appellant was afforded opportunities to address the material.

Conclusion: Reliance on the statement without cross-examination did not violate natural justice, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the income-tax appellate decision accepting a transaction as genuine displaced the benami determination.

Analysis: Income-tax assessment and benami proceedings serve different statutory purposes. The benami legislation has overriding effect, and the income-tax appellate decision did not address the circumstances relevant to identifying a benami arrangement.

Conclusion: The income-tax appellate decision did not displace the benami determination, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The determination of benami character and the attachment remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: A fair opportunity to answer and rebut relied-upon material does not confer an automatic or absolute right to cross-examine every witness.

Issues: Whether denial of access to the original import file and cross-examination of departmental witnesses violated natural justice.

Analysis: The importer had requested the original import file and cross-examination of departmental witnesses. The adjudicating authority declined cross-examination on the assumption that it would serve no purpose in light of the importer's statements, and rejected the request concerning the original documents. The valuation merits were not decided; the relevant CBIC circulars were directed to be kept in mind during fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: Natural justice was violated. The importer must be provided a copy of the original import file and an opportunity to cross-examine the department's chartered engineer before fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A requested cross-examination of a material departmental witness cannot be denied merely on the assumption that it would serve no purpose; the affected party must also have a meaningful opportunity to access relevant import records.

Issues: Whether a corporate plaintiff may produce a subsequent board resolution concerning authorization and ratification of acts connected with its suit.

Analysis: Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 concerns the powers of a company's board. Order XXIX Rule 1 and Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 address the signing and verification of pleadings. Authority to institute a suit is distinct from authority to sign and verify pleadings. A corporation may expressly or impliedly ratify an officer's signing of pleadings, and curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. An executive director's authority letter was on record, while the subsequent resolution purported to acknowledge authorization and ratify acts connected with the suit. The existence and effect of authorization require assessment on the evidence and circumstances of the trial.

Conclusion: Production of the resolution was permitted. Its admissibility and effect on authorization and maintainability remain for determination by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent board resolution may be produced without prejudging whether the company validly authorized or ratified the institution of the suit; those questions remain for determination at trial.

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: Whether the proceedings and recovery notice were sustainable where the notice and original order were communicated through the portal and the petitioner was not heard.

Analysis: The show-cause notice and original order were uploaded on the portal, and the petitioner had no opportunity to be heard. The decision relied on the distinction between sufficient and effective service under Section 169 of the GST Act and the use of alternative statutory modes when portal-based service is ineffective.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, original and appellate orders, and recovery notice were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where portal-based service is ineffective and a person is denied an opportunity to respond, failure to use an alternative statutory mode of service violates natural justice and vitiates the proceedings.

Issues: Whether a writ challenge to cancellation of GST registration is maintainable after the statutory appeal period and the permitted extension have expired without an appeal being filed.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a three-month appeal period and permits a further month on sufficient cause; it confers no power on the appellate authority to condone delay beyond that extension. The right of appeal is statutory. The petitioner did not use that remedy and attributed the omission to lack of familiarity with the GST portal. Allowing a writ challenge solely because the remedy had consequently been lost would undermine the statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to cancellation was not maintainable in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the statutory appeal limitation merely because a party's own omission has resulted in loss of the appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether payment of the entire first-appeal pre-deposit through the electronic credit ledger rendered the appeal time-barred or required a further cash deposit. (ii) Whether input tax credit of integrated tax paid on imports could be denied for return mismatches, supplier reporting or misclassification of the credit.

Issue (i): Whether payment of the entire first-appeal pre-deposit through the electronic credit ledger rendered the appeal time-barred or required a further cash deposit.

Analysis: The special appeal notification prescribed a filing window and a pre-deposit of 12.5% of disputed tax, at least 20% of which was to be paid through the electronic cash ledger. The appeal was filed within that window and the full deposit was paid through the credit ledger. The notification's filing deadline was distinct from its payment-mode condition, and a payment defect could be cured without treating a timely appeal as time-barred. A further cash payment over the full deposit already made would increase the total deposit beyond 12.5%; an additional cash deposit had also been made at the Tribunal stage.

Conclusion: The appeal was timely, the deposit was sufficient in the circumstances, and no further cash deposit was required. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit of integrated tax paid on imports could be denied for return mismatches, supplier reporting or misclassification of the credit.

Analysis: Bills of entry are recognised documents for claiming import credit. The bills and corresponding return entries matched the credit claimed, and the customs assessment and clearance records supported actual payment of integrated tax. Import credit is reported separately from domestic-supplier credit, and no domestic supplier's return exists in the import chain. The supplier-reporting provision invoked in the demand was not in force during the relevant financial year. Reporting import credit under another return category affected its classification rather than its underlying eligibility.

Conclusion: The import credit was eligible, and the related tax, interest and penalty demands could not survive. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The first-appeal deposit was accepted for maintainability, and the assessee's import credit was restored without the related tax, interest and penalty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Import credit supported by bills of entry and payment of integrated tax cannot be denied solely on domestic-supplier reporting grounds or because it was entered under the wrong return category.

Issues: Whether the earlier order rejecting condonation of delay could be recalled on the asserted ground of e-filing failure and a subsequent judicial decision.

Analysis: Recall is distinct from review and is available on recognised grounds including patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, court mistake prejudicing a party, or failure to serve or represent a necessary party. A reasoned order deciding the delay application had remained unchallenged and attained finality. The subsequent decision did not alter the limits of recall jurisdiction. E-filing remained available on holidays, which did not explain the additional delay. The Tribunal declined to reassess the technical report in recall proceedings.

Conclusion: No recognised ground for recall was established; the application was an impermissible attempt to review the earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall cannot be used as a substitute for review or an unexercised appeal to reopen a final order when no recognised ground for recall is established.

Issues: Whether the corporate debtor can compel the financial creditor to produce the requested documents before the admission hearing of an insolvency application.

Analysis: Admission proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are summary in nature, and the financial creditor bears the burden of establishing financial debt and default. An unrestricted inquiry before admission would resemble a civil suit. Under Rules 43 and 131 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, the adjudicating authority retains power to require documents necessary for effective adjudication and to draw an adverse inference concerning documents legally required to be produced.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor cannot as of right compel production of the requested documents before the admission hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In summary insolvency admission proceedings, document production is subject to the adjudicating authority's assessment of necessity and is not an automatic right of the corporate debtor.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax on the identified goods transport agency services was payable by the recipients under reverse charge; (ii) whether the identified transport services qualified for exemption; (iii) whether the extended limitation period was invocable; and (iv) whether the demand could be sustained solely on income-tax data without independent verification.

Issue (i): Whether service tax on the identified goods transport agency services was payable by the recipients under reverse charge.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST and Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 place the full liability on the recipient where the consignor or consignee falls within the specified categories. The consignment-wise and party-wise documents identified the relevant recipients; the lower authorities had declined relief for want of recipient-wise payment proof.

Conclusion: The identified services were subject to reverse charge, and the demand against the assessee was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the identified transport services qualified for exemption.

Analysis: The exemption under entry 21(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST applies to the identified transport of fertiliser, organic manure and oil cakes. The claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement; the consignee-wise chart and sample transport documents substantially discharged that burden.

Conclusion: The identified transport services were exempt, and the related demand was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The demand was based on differences between income-tax data and service-tax returns. The income-tax data was available to the department through the CBDT, and the Tribunal found no basis to allege suppression from that data.

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

Issue (iv): Whether the demand could be sustained solely on income-tax data without independent verification.

Analysis: Form 26AS and income-tax returns reflect data maintained for income-tax purposes. The demand was raised from that third-party data without independent verification of the nature of the services or corroborative evidence establishing taxable services.

Conclusion: The demand based solely on the income-tax data was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand had no legal basis, and no consequential interest or penalty was payable.

Ratio Decidendi: Income-tax data alone, without independent verification of taxable services, cannot establish service-tax liability or justify invoking the extended limitation period on grounds of suppression.

Issues: (i) Whether book printing was excluded from service tax as manufacture or production of goods; (ii) Whether a service tax demand could be sustained solely on a difference between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether book printing was excluded from service tax as manufacture or production of goods.

Analysis: Book printing was a manufacturing or production process under the excise law, and printed books attracted a nil tariff rate. The Finance Act defined a process amounting to manufacture or production by reference to excise duties and placed such processes in the negative list of services.

Conclusion: Book printing was excluded from service tax as manufacture or production of goods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a service tax demand could be sustained solely on a difference between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns.

Analysis: The burden of establishing taxability lay on the department. The notices identified a difference in reported values but did not identify an untaxed service transaction or establish the statutory ingredients of a service.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained solely on the difference in returns, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The proviso governing the extended period addresses evasion-related grounds. Neither the notices nor the adjudication order identified a positive act of evasion.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision addresses the manufacturing exclusion and the evidentiary and limitation requirements for a service tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot rest solely on a discrepancy between tax-deduction and service-tax returns without identifying a taxable service and establishing the elements of the levy.

Issues: Whether removal of inputs as such after reversal of CENVAT credit constitutes trading attracting payment under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The inputs were removed to sister units or independent buyers after reversal of the credit originally taken, as provided under Rule 3(5). Rule 6(3) governs specified payments in respect of exempted activities, and trading was declared an exempted service from 1 April 2011. The reasoning applied precedents distinguishing removal of inputs as such from trading.

Conclusion: Removal of inputs as such on reversal of credit is not trading and does not attract Rule 6(3). The post-1 April 2011 demands, interest and penalties were set aside; the pre-1 April 2011 demands remained dropped.

Ratio Decidendi: Removal of inputs as such after reversal of the credit taken is not trading and does not attract payment under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Issues: (i) Whether the challenges to the interim arbitral award were maintainable before the final award. (ii) Whether the loan agreements were governed by Maharashtra or Delhi stamp law. (iii) Whether the facility schedules could be disregarded when determining if the agreements specified monetary values.

Issue (i): Whether the challenges to the interim arbitral award were maintainable before the final award.

Analysis: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a rejected plea concerning the tribunal's jurisdiction is ordinarily challengeable after the final award, while an interim award conclusively deciding a preliminary issue may be challenged under Section 34. The arbitrator decided the preliminary stamping questions under the scope of the Supreme Court's directions, without deciding whether the earlier jurisdictional applications had been disposed of. Those determinations would not be revisited in the final award.

Conclusion: The challenges were maintainable before the final award.

Issue (ii): Whether the loan agreements were governed by Maharashtra or Delhi stamp law.

Analysis: The charging provisions of the stamp statutes must be strictly construed. For an instrument signed in different States, the applicable law depends on a real territorial nexus and the character of the instrument; the place of the first signature is not conclusively determinative. The agreements required the lender's signature as well as the borrowers' signatures. The lender signed in Delhi, completing the chargeable instruments there.

Conclusion: The agreements were executed in Delhi and are liable to be stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in Delhi.

Issue (iii): Whether the facility schedules could be disregarded when determining if the agreements specified monetary values.

Analysis: The agreements required the relevant facility schedules to be read with the loan terms, and the schedules recorded facility amounts. Treating the executed schedules as separate merely because their format differed from the booklet ignored material contractual terms.

Conclusion: The facility schedules could not be disregarded; the finding that the agreements specified no monetary value could not stand.

Final Conclusion: Delhi stamp law governs the agreements, and the relevant facility schedules form part of the contractual documentation for assessing their monetary terms.

Ratio Decidendi: For a multi-party instrument requiring all parties' signatures, the applicable stamp law depends on the real territorial nexus and completed execution, not conclusively on the place of the first signature.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in proceedings concerning an alleged GST offence.

Analysis: The bail application was made under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an alleged offence under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The accused had remained in judicial custody since arrest, his voluntary statement had been recorded, and the respondents accepted his release on conditions.

Conclusion: The accused is entitled to conditional bail on a personal bond with two sureties, attendance when called on notice, and abstention from similar offences.

Issues: Whether GST registration could be cancelled for non-deposit of input tax credit where returns were regularly filed.

Analysis: The alleged non-deposit concerned recovery of input tax credit, for which Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provide a procedure. The petitioner had regularly filed returns.

Conclusion: The cancellation was unjustified, and its revocation was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-deposit of input tax credit does not by itself justify cancellation of GST registration where returns are regularly filed; the applicable recovery procedure should be followed.