Article 226 judicial review examines the legality of a statutory authority's decision-making process and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a plausible disciplinary assessment based on the record. The Board's closure of the disciplinary complaint therefore remains undisturbed where no illegality, mala fides, or deliberate facilitation is established. Absence of a fiduciary or professional relationship does not itself exclude other misconduct, but is material where the prima facie opinion depends on the existence of that relationship. Pending criminal proceedings do not bar independent disciplinary jurisdiction; disciplinary action may proceed on the available evidence.

Recall of a merits order quashing issuance of process requires a cogent ground or identifiable infirmity; a complainant's absence at the final hearing alone is insufficient. Where the complaint has been adjudicated on the pleadings and record under the Negotiable Instruments Act provisions governing cheque dishonour and company liability, prior adjournments sought for the complainant and the absence of any demonstrated defect do not justify reopening the merits determination. Recall is therefore unwarranted.

Section 34 petitions filed within three months of an arbitral award satisfy the limitation period under Section 34(3). Where a contract directs adjudication before the court having jurisdiction at the place of work execution, and the work was executed in Sundargarh, the competent court there may entertain the award challenge. In the absence of an express or agreed juridical seat, arbitral sittings at another location for convenience constitute only a venue and do not create exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. Arbitrator appointment proceedings do not select the local court for subsequent proceedings, and Section 42 does not preclude merits consideration by the competent court at Sundargarh.

Statutory demand notices under proviso (b) to Section 138 are treated as given when sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act create a rebuttable presumption of service; the drawer must prove an incorrect address, lack of tender, or non-knowledge not attributable to the drawer. Receipt by a co-residing family member does not alone rebut that presumption. A contrary approach that ignores larger-Bench authority and shared residence is per incuriam and lacks binding force under Article 141.

Builder construction undertaken after an agreement for sale with a purchaser is treated as a works contract because it is performed for that purchaser; construction completed without a prior purchaser agreement is not. VAT may therefore apply in principle to post-agreement construction. For 2005-06, however, the absence of an operative mechanism to determine taxable turnover attributable to goods transferred under an indivisible works contract prevents enforcement of the levy, despite the activity falling within the statutory works-contract definition.

VAT under Section 3 arises only when goods are sold. Where goods recorded as short in a survey are later sold and tax is paid on those sales, a separate levy on the shortage without considering those payments may result in double taxation. A default assessment requires fresh consideration of the subsequent sales and tax paid on the allegedly short goods; otherwise, its jurisdictional basis is affected.

Appellate review was confined to the EOU-clearance component because the Revenue challenged only that part of the dropped duty demand; separate supply categories could not be restored. Cement was ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. For cement supplied to the EOU, duty already paid on 125.80 MT required adjustment, leaving liability only on 173.90 MT, with interest. The penalty was set aside.

Tariff classification distinguishes batter-coated, spiced and deep-fried peanuts from salted peanuts fried only in vegetable oil. The former, having a distinct commercial identity as a gram-flour-based food preparation, falls under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2106 90 99 and qualifies for the relevant exemption; the latter remains within sub-heading 2008 11 00 under the specific-entry principle and is not exempt. ISD-distributed CENVAT credit is available to an eligible contract manufacturing unit for the pre-1 April 2016 period where service costs enter the assessable value; later amendments cure a scheme lacuna from inception. Penalties do not arise from an interpretational classification or credit dispute absent mens rea, fraud, collusion, wilful suppression, or intent to evade duty.

Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies where an assessee manufactures both dutiable and exempt goods without maintaining separate accounts for inputs or input services. Job-worked goods cleared without payment of duty to the principal manufacturer remain dutiable goods; non-payment of duty by the job worker at clearance does not render them exempt goods. Consequently, Cenvat credit on consumables used to manufacture job-worked goods is not barred under Rule 6(2), and denial of that credit is unsustainable.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because raw-material shortages are recorded where the stock is explained as work-in-progress and supported by work log sheets. Authorities must examine that explanation and investigate whether the inputs were actually received before treating shortages as proof of non-receipt. Uninvestigated raw-material shortages, without addressing contemporaneous production records, do not establish that goods were not received and cannot by themselves justify denial of credit.

Fiscal liability for clandestine removal requires reliable, corroborated evidence connecting unaccounted inputs, manufacture, removal, transport, recipients and consideration. Unsigned loose sheets, WhatsApp printouts, Tally data recovered from third-party premises, and unverified third-party files lack sufficient evidentiary value where authorship, custody, provenance, extraction, integrity, and statutory safeguards for electronic records are not established. Statements indicating only a marketing connection cannot independently prove clandestine manufacture or clearance. Natural justice requires disclosure of relied-upon statements and records. Assumptions based on selected consumption ratios or uncorroborated private records cannot substitute for a complete evidentiary chain.

Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 excludes supplies to qualifying Mega Power Projects under International Competitive Bidding from Rules 6(1) to 6(4). Project certificates supporting supplies for expansion of an existing Mega Power Project under that procedure meet the exception. Customs-duty exemption for this purpose includes partial basic-duty exemption coupled with nil additional customs duty; full exemption from every customs-duty component is unnecessary. Consequently, separate accounts, credit reversal, and prescribed percentage payment requirements do not apply to qualifying supplies.

Electronic data and computer printouts qualify as documentary evidence for excise purposes only when statutory conditions, including the required certificate, are met. Material failing that threshold cannot quantify alleged clandestine manufacture or clearance; the limited third-party certificate exception requires proof that all possible steps to secure it were taken. Investigative statements remain distinct evidence. Refusal of cross-examination invalidates reliance on them only where demonstrated, witness-specific prejudice exists. Unretracted statements, read with invoices, transport, weighment and statutory records, may establish transactions or quantities independently, but quantities appearing only in inadmissible electronic records cannot be adopted. Duty, interest and penalties must rest solely on independently admissible evidence after hearing.

Admissibility of evidence governs denial of CENVAT credit for alleged non-receipt of inputs. Third-party investigative statements require examination and formal admission unless a statutory exception applies, while third-party electronic records require prescribed safeguards and certification. Uncorroborated transport discrepancies or portal data do not, without transaction-specific proof, displace invoices, payment records, production records and duty-paid clearances. Personal penalty requires proof of knowledge, active participation and conscious dealing with goods liable to confiscation. A deposit during investigation, including a payment asserted to be coerced, does not alone establish liability or fraudulent availment of credit.

Job-work services involving goods produced from client-supplied materials qualify for exemption where the processed goods are returned for use in manufacturing final products cleared on payment of appropriate excise duty. In those circumstances, inputs and input services used for the job work remain eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The services are not treated as exempted services for Rule 6 purposes, so the Rule 6 credit-reversal restriction does not apply.

Royalty paid under mining lease agreements executed before 1 April 2016 is not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism under the negative-list regime, and no penalty is imposable. The execution date of each mining lease agreement is material to determining the exclusion. Where agreements were not produced before the lower authorities, factual verification of their execution dates is necessary before service tax liability and penalty can be determined.

Earmarked government grants-in-aid do not constitute taxable consideration for Business Exhibition Service where they fund specified activities, are subject to utilisation certification, are fully recorded as expenditure, and lack a service-provider-client relationship, invoices, or payment for services. The grants operate as reimbursement-like funds rather than consideration. Extended limitation is unavailable where grant transactions and expenditure appear in audited accounts and a bona fide belief negates suppression or intent to evade tax. It is likewise unavailable for reverse-charge liability where recorded transactions are revenue neutral because any tax paid would be available as CENVAT credit.

Expatriate deputation by an overseas employer for a fixed, short duration fell within taxable Manpower Recruitment and Supply Service; salary payment, tax deduction and Form 16 issued by the recipient did not alter that character. However, extended limitation required deliberate withholding of material facts. Audit or investigation-based detection, without a reasoned finding of deliberate suppression, was insufficient. The demand was therefore time-barred despite taxable service on merits.

Composite service classification follows the essential character test: work orders predominantly involving transportation of coal, slurry and related material fall under goods transport agency service, while incidental activities do not convert the service into mining. Consignment-note transactions may attract reverse-charge liability for specified corporate recipients; transport without consignment notes falls within the negative list. Small-service-provider exemption applies to management, maintenance and repair and supply of tangible goods services except for limited non-exempt turnover. In the absence of suppression with intent to evade, no penalty for non-payment applies, although delayed return filing remains penalised. A separate unsupported demand for the later period is unsustainable.

Service-tax exemption under Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. required the exporter to submit the certified half-yearly return and supporting documents within 15 days after the relevant period. The Service Tax Rules allowing belated returns on payment of a fine did not displace that separate exemption condition, so late filing defeated the claim. Penalty for service-tax default had to remain within the statutory daily or monthly calculation and maximum ceiling; a penalty calculated above those limits could not be sustained.