Waste and scrap arising from manufacture of goods under headings 8601 to 8606 cleared at a concessional duty rate falls within the exemption for such scrap, because the relevant entry does not limit relief to wholly exempt or nil-rated finished goods. An incorrect claim under a different notification does not displace an independently available exemption. The extended limitation period requires particularised fraud, wilful suppression, or intent to evade duty; departmental knowledge of the material facts and a bona fide notification-interpretation dispute defeat its invocation. Consequently, the duty paid is refundable, and no duty demand, consequential interest, or penalty survives.

Rule 6(3) permits a manufacturer that does not maintain separate accounts to choose the prescribed payment method or proportionate CENVAT-credit reversal. Rule 6(3A) requires written intimation of the date from which the proportionate-reversal option is exercised. Neither the Rules deem an election on the first day of a financial year nor treat continued payments under an earlier regime as an election of the payment option. Withdrawal restrictions apply only after actual exercise of an option; therefore, the proportionate-reversal option may be exercised during the financial year where no prior act of election occurred.

Foreign CRS/GDS services used to disseminate real-time flight availability and facilitate travel-agent ticket bookings did not fall within online information and database access or retrieval services. That classification required the foreign provider to supply data or information to the recipient, whereas the arrangements principally promoted and increased bookings and consideration depended on successful bookings. Booking information already existed in the airline's records and was automatically updated; it was not provider-owned data supplied to the airline. Incidental data flow could not alter the service's essential character. Receipt of the services therefore did not trigger reverse-charge service-tax liability.

Landowner receipts under a joint development arrangement were attributable to the sale of residential flats rather than consideration for a taxable transfer of development rights. Transactions concerning land and benefits arising from land fall outside the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994. Where development rights are inseparable from the land and the parties jointly develop and sell flats, the arrangement does not create a distinct taxable supply of development rights to the developer. Consequently, the landowner's agreed share of sale proceeds was treated as proceeds from immovable property, with no service tax or penalty payable.

Road carriers qualify as goods transport agencies only when they both provide transport of goods by road and issue consignment notes. Road transport is otherwise within the negative list, except for services rendered by a goods transport agency or courier agency. Carriers that do not issue consignment notes therefore fall outside the definition of goods transport agency and are not liable to service tax on those road-transport services.

Reverse-charge service tax could not be levied on management consultancy services received from abroad where the service was rendered before 18 April 2006, when Section 66A became effective. The applicable legal position excluded reverse-charge liability for the pre-effective period. Consequently, no service tax was payable under reverse charge on the March 2006 service, and the confirmed demand was unsustainable.

Individually constructed residential dwellings provided for a buyer's personal use do not fall within taxable construction of a residential complex merely because they form part of a common housing layout. A perpetual lease of a plot and timber chalet or villa for individual residential use is therefore outside the service-tax levy. Service-tax refunds are governed by Section 11B through Section 83: for a purchaser other than the service provider, the relevant date is the service purchase date, evidenced by payment and the tax-bearing document. A claim filed within one year, where the purchaser bore and did not pass on the tax incidence, is eligible for consideration.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery applies only where suppression of facts, collusion, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax is established. Prior departmental issuance of a show-cause notice concerning identical activities demonstrates awareness of the relevant facts and demand basis. Without the statutory grounds for the extended period, a subsequent notice issued beyond normal limitation for the disputed financial year is time-barred. The extended limitation period therefore cannot sustain recovery proceedings in those circumstances.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires positive and deliberate suppression or misstatement with intent to evade tax; mere non-registration, non-payment, or non-filing of returns does not satisfy that standard, particularly where a bona fide interpretational dispute exists. Small service-provider threshold exemption applies where the preceding financial year's revenue remains below the prescribed limit. Service-tax liability also requires correct identification and classification of the taxable service; membership fees and commission receipts cannot be taxed merely on an unverified assumption that they constitute legal and administrative services. Consequently, an unclassified demand raised through invalid extended limitation lacks legal basis.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires demonstrable deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax. Mere non-payment, short-payment, discrepancies between returns and financial records, or a disputed exemption claim do not meet that threshold. Registered taxpayers who filed ST-3 returns, supplied agreements and financial records during investigation, and acted on a bona fide belief that services were exempt could not be treated as having deliberately concealed liability. A substantial reduction in the original demand further weakened any allegation of suppression. Recovery for part of the disputed period also exceeded the maximum five-year limitation period. The service-tax demand was therefore time-barred, with consequential interest and penalties unsustainable.

Transportation of goods by road without consignment notes falls outside taxable Goods Transport Agency services under the negative-list regime, because issuance of a consignment note is required for GTA status. Treating gross receipts alone as taxable consideration, without identifying another taxable service, cannot sustain Service Tax. Income Tax receipt data may prompt inquiry but does not by itself establish taxable activity, suppression, or intent to evade. Extended limitation therefore cannot apply absent independent evidence of deliberate concealment, and the tax demand, consequential interest, and penalties lack a sustainable basis.

Exhibit A, already part of the written submissions and record considered at the original hearing, may be incorporated into the final order where its omission is purely clerical and typographical. Such insertion records material already tendered, without changing the reasoning, findings, or operative directions; it therefore does not amount to a substantive review. Exhibit A is to be inserted, while all remaining findings and directions continue unchanged.

Hiring hot-mix plants, paver machines and accessories under agreements for consideration constitutes supply of tangible goods rather than construction, repair or road-maintenance services; the relevant construction and public-works exemptions therefore do not apply. Where service tax is not separately collected, taxable value is computed on a cum-tax basis. Threshold exemption is unavailable if preceding-year taxable turnover exceeds the prescribed limit. Failure to obtain registration or file returns despite taxable turnover above that limit, without a plausible explanation or bona fide belief, constitutes suppression with intent to evade tax. That conduct permits extended limitation and attracts the statutory equal penalty, while time-barred periods remain excluded.

Monetary limits for departmental appeals under the Central Excise and service-tax framework apply to pending legacy matters, including disputes involving recurring issues. Appeals before the High Court below the prescribed threshold cannot be pursued merely on alleged cascading consequences or a common question of law. The only retained exceptions concern challenges to the constitutional validity of an Act or Rule and findings that a notification, instruction, order, or circular is illegal or ultra vires. The former classification-and-refund exception was withdrawn, and income-tax circulars do not expand the available exceptions. Below-threshold appeals outside those exceptions are precluded, while proposed substantial questions of law remain open.

Finality of assessments in Bills of Entry bars a subsequent differential customs-duty demand based on reclassification when Revenue did not challenge the original assessments. Goods were assessed under the importer's declared classification and cleared after out-of-charge; those assessments consequently became final. The confirmed demand was set aside, and Revenue's challenge to the dropped demand was not maintainable.

Penalty for alleged evasion of anti-dumping duty through routing Chinese-origin goods via Malaysia requires legally admissible proof that certificates of origin were false, unauthorised or discrepant, and that the person penalised knew of or aided the contravention. The alleged procurement of false certificates must be supported by reliable evidence and prescribed verification of the certificates. Electronic material lacking evidentiary admissibility, retracted statements, and statements relied upon without cross-examination despite statutory safeguards cannot establish the requisite knowledge, involvement or abetment for penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act requires reliable material establishing that a person dealt with goods liable to confiscation with knowledge or reason to believe that liability. A promptly retracted statement, unsupported by verification of alleged owners, the landlord, or other corroborative evidence, does not satisfy that requirement. An invoice supporting the claim that certain cartons were Indian-made further weakens attribution of foreign-origin cigarettes. Where confiscation, release, and valuation of seized electric rice cookers and ceramic stoves remain inadequately established, release on a reduced redemption fine may be appropriate.

Unflavoured supari classification under CTI 2106 90 30 is governed by Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, tariff descriptions and Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21, which covers supari without requiring added ingredients. Revenue must produce cogent evidence to displace that specific entry; inconclusive laboratory testing of physical features does not establish classification as split areca nuts, while food-safety material supports product identity without conclusively determining classification. An unchallenged Certificate of Origin supports preferential basic customs duty. With classification as supari and no lawful basis to reject declared value, valuation proceeds under Section 14(1), leaving no basis for confiscation or consequential customs liabilities.

Misdeclaration of restricted goods as refractory bed material in an attempted export supports confiscation, redemption fine and penalties where no mala fides, statutory violation or extreme arbitrariness affects the discretionary sanctions. The re-export principle applicable to imported goods does not govern such attempted exports. Seized goods may be disposed of through e-auction where provisional release is not obtained within the prescribed period, but Customs must issue proper prior notice, allow at least 30 days for objections, and comply with applicable statutory requirements and instructions.

Investigative clearance enabled the petitioner to obtain duplicate SIM cards for mobile numbers whose SIM cards had been seized. The request for release arose while the petitioner was detained and was made through the petitioner's wife. Availability of duplicate SIM cards addressed the practical grievance concerning continued access to the mobile numbers. Allegations in the writ petition remained denied and unadmitted because no affidavit in opposition was called for.