Cenvat credit is admissible for countervailing duty paid at the concessional rate under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs. Rule 3(1)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit of additional duty levied under the Customs Tariff Act where it is equivalent to the specified excise duty. Countervailing duty paid at 2% under the Customs exemption remained equivalent duty for this purpose. The restriction under the separate Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise did not apply to credit of countervailing duty paid under the Customs notification.

Sales tax subsidy granted under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 through VAT/CST challans is excluded from the assessable value of excisable goods where the assessee remits the full VAT/CST collected from customers to the State. Because the challans merely discharge future VAT/CST liabilities, without reducing the sale price or allowing retention of collected tax, the subsidy is not additional consideration for the sale and does not enter transaction value under the Central Excise Act. Consequently, no excise duty or penalty arises on that subsidy.

Recovery of CENVAT credit beyond the normal one-year limitation period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Departmental awareness of the receipt of left-over bulk cement and prior permission to avail credit on that quantity negate allegations of suppression or intent to evade. In the absence of evidence supporting the conditions for extended limitation, the demand for the relevant period was time-barred and could not be sustained.

Investigation-stage deposits refunded after an excise demand becomes unsustainable are treated as amounts retained without legal entitlement, rather than as excise-duty refunds. Sections 11B and 11BB therefore do not govern interest on such deposits, because they address duty refunds and delayed statutory refunds. In the absence of an applicable statutory interest provision for pre-Section 35FF deposits, compensatory interest is payable from each date of deposit until actual refund. The applicable rate is 12% per annum, with the interest to be calculated and paid within eight weeks.

Clandestine manufacture and clearance of Pan Masala and scented chewing tobacco require cogent, positive and corroborative evidence covering raw-material procurement, production, input consumption, transport, buyers, consideration and financial flow-back. An unverified third-party transport record of unproved authorship and reliability cannot establish receipt or consumption of laminates without supporting transport records or witness verification. Arbitrary conversion of box entries into laminate weight and presumptions based on alleged paired sales cannot prove manufacture or removal of chewing tobacco. Successive presumptions and estimated calculations cannot replace proof of each taxable event; consequently, the excise-duty and NCCD demand was unsustainable.

Processed milk arising as an integral intermediate stage in the continuous manufacture of sugar-boiled confectionery, whether captively consumed or sent to job workers, is not an exempted final product for CENVAT credit purposes. Rules 3 and 6 apply to inputs or input services used in manufacturing final products, requiring the manufacturing process to be assessed as a whole. A technological or unavoidable intermediate product used to make the dutiable ultimate product does not trigger the Rule 6 obligation merely because it is not independently cleared. The resulting demand is unsustainable.

Personal-hearing notices under the Central Excise Act require acknowledgement or other material establishing service; mere issuance does not provide a valid opportunity of hearing. Non-service was corroborated by counsel appearing before the same appellate authority in a separate matter on the same date, indicating non-receipt in the interest dispute. Determination of the interest issue on merits without addressing the denied hearing was improper. The appellant's claim requires fresh reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Tribunal remand directions requiring reconsideration of classification, valuation and the extended-period demand must be followed in fresh adjudication. Technical reports and approved classifications must be considered where the remand expressly requires their use in redetermining classification. An adjudicating authority cannot adopt an evidentiary approach contrary to those directions, and an appellate authority cannot confirm that approach without independent application of mind. Orders made in disregard of the remand mandate are invalid and require fresh adjudication after the assessee is given a hearing.

Reimbursable registration fees collected from students and remitted to IATA did not form part of the taxable value of commercial training and coaching services for the disputed period. Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax valuation rules could not enlarge the scope of Section 67 to include reimbursable expenditure in taxable service value. The later statutory inclusion of reimbursable expenditure or cost was substantive and operated prospectively. Consequently, the registration fees were excluded from taxable value, and the related demand, interest and penalties could not survive.

Goods Transport Agency classification requires both provision of transportation-related service and issuance of a consignment note. Receipts from hiring lorries owned or operated by the service provider, without consignment notes, do not meet that definition. Such receipts also cannot support service-tax liability under clearing and forwarding service where that taxable category is not established by the nature of the activity. The service-tax demand and consequential liabilities are therefore unsustainable.

Limitation for an appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 runs from receipt of the Order-in-Original rather than its date. Dispatch is treated as the filing date. Where an appeal was dispatched six days after the two-month period but within the further one-month condonable period, resetting an old service-tax password and obtaining prior records constituted bona fide sufficient cause. The delay was therefore condonable, making dismissal solely on limitation unsustainable.

Service-tax valuation for renting of immovable property is confined to the gross consideration charged by the service provider for the taxable service. Renovation and upgradation costs independently incurred and capitalised by the service recipient, paid directly to third parties, and neither controlled by the provider nor shown to be consideration or a condition of renting, fall outside the taxable value. Rule 3(b) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 cannot expand the statutory valuation base under the Finance Act, 1994. Tax liability therefore remains limited to the lease consideration actually received, and penalties linked solely to an enhanced valuation demand do not survive.

Service tax on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism cannot be demanded from an Indian importer where goods are supplied on CIF terms. The overseas seller is the recipient of the sea-transportation service, while the Indian importer is neither the service provider nor the service recipient. Binding rulings on this position require application in the absence of a stay, and subsequent decisions, including rejection of a similar Revenue challenge, support the same result. The reverse-charge demand is therefore unsustainable against the importer.

Limitation for an appeal from an adjudication order runs from receipt of the order, not its dispatch. Valid service requires proof that the order was served in the prescribed manner; dispatch alone does not establish communication. In the absence of evidence of earlier service, the appeal filed after receipt of the certified copy was within time. Ex parte adjudication without proof that the assessee knew of the proceedings denies an effective opportunity of representation and breaches principles of natural justice. The limitation rejection could not stand, and the merits required adjudication after a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Target-based and other manufacturer incentives received by an authorised vehicle dealer operating on a principal-to-principal basis are trade discounts or price adjustments, rather than consideration for a taxable service, where the dealer resells vehicles and parts for its own profit. Increased manufacturer sales are incidental, and meeting sales targets is only a condition for a discount unless the dealer assumes an enforceable, identified obligation in return. Section 66E(e) requires an agreement expressly obliging a person to do, refrain from doing, or tolerate an act, with consideration specifically linked to that obligation. Without that contractual nexus, incentives, support and reimbursements do not attract service tax or consequential penalties.

Verification of discrepancies between Form 26AS receipts and ST-3 returns should cover corrected challans, tax payments, and reconciliation evidence. Where differential receipts represent customer advances invoiced later, the timing of service-tax discharge in the succeeding period requires examination. Production of supporting documents and a hearing are necessary before fresh adjudication; the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for that verification.

Trading or sales involving transfer of title in goods fall outside the statutory definition of service, while renting a residential dwelling for hostel accommodation is excluded from service tax as residential use. Extended limitation requires evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax; disclosures and a reasonable view of non-taxability defeat its use. Form 26AS and income-tax return data alone cannot establish a taxable service, the parties to it, or consideration paid for it. Accordingly, these receipt categories do not support a service-tax demand or consequential liabilities.

Section 126 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, read with Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme) Rules, 2019, requires the Designated Committee to verify departmental records, the declarant's disclosure, and supporting material before determining the amount payable. The Scheme provides specified relief on tax dues, subject to its conditions, and does not permit refunds. Materially inconsistent Forms SVLDRS-3 issued on the same date, without verification of disclosed payments and documentary evidence, cannot support a valid determination. A fresh determination requires complete verification of the declaration and supporting records.

Rectification proceedings concern correction of a clerical mistake said to have inadvertently appeared in a prior judgment. The Directorate of Enforcement filed the application, but no representative appeared to argue it. The public prosecutor was directed to notify the Directorate's office, and the matter was listed for a later date. No determination on the requested correction is recorded.

At the discharge stage, material must be assessed only for a prima facie case or strong suspicion; a roving inquiry or trial-like weighing of evidence is impermissible. Bank transfers, statements recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and corroborative accounts of cash arrangements and delivery indicated that the transfers were not supported as ordinary business transactions. Knowingly assisting or participating in a process connected with proceeds of crime constitutes money laundering. The material therefore raised strong suspicion of knowing involvement in facilitating the transfer of proceeds of crime, and discharge was unwarranted.