Defective goods received under job-work challans under Rule 4(5a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 may be rectified and returned without duty liability where no CENVAT credit was availed on the duty paid on their return. In those circumstances, the subsequent return of rectified goods does not attract duty, and no penalty is imposable.

CENVAT credit is admissible on duty-paid MS angles, channels, joists, beams and similar steel items where statutory records and technical evidence establish their use in fabricating capital goods, including a DRI kiln and related factory equipment, used to manufacture dutiable final products. Rule 2(k) treats such items as eligible inputs when deployed for fabrication of capital goods within the factory. Item-wise usage records and a Chartered Engineer's certificate support the required nexus between the steel items, machinery fabrication and dutiable production.

Central excise demand founded on deemed manufacture could not survive because its essential premise-a retrospective reclassification of cranes from Tariff Item 8426 12 00 to Tariff Item 8426 41 00-had failed. Classification under Tariff Item 8426 41 00 was necessary to bring the cranes within Serial No. 100A of the Third Schedule and trigger deemed manufacture for activities involving parts and spares. A show cause notice seeking only a classification change lacked statutory support under Section 11A; the original classification therefore remained undisturbed. The consequential duty, interest and penalty demand was set aside.

Penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is confined to an individual or naturally living person and cannot be imposed on a private limited company as an artificial corporate entity; the corporate penalty was therefore set aside. Allegations that invoices were issued without actual supply require reliable evidentiary support. Where invoices were recorded in returns, payments were received through banking channels, and the principal reliance was on a delayed vehicle owner or driver statement while evidence was absent for several invoices, the alleged paper supplies were not established and could not sustain a penalty.

SVLDR Scheme benefit available for a principal party's dispute can correspondingly extend to persons separately penalised in the same circumstances, even without independent scheme applications. Comparable Tribunal decisions supported extension of that benefit, and no contrary authority was identified. Separately penalised appellants consequently qualify for corresponding scheme relief and consequential relief.

Extended limitation cannot sustain a CENVAT credit demand where eligibility turns on a bona fide interpretative dispute concerning inputs used to fabricate or support capital goods, rather than suppression or deliberate non-disclosure; the extended-period demand is therefore unsustainable. Inputs used in fabrication, repair or maintenance of capital goods, including integral structural supports, may qualify for CENVAT credit. Normal-period entitlement, however, requires reliable evidence of the inputs' actual use, such as adequate documentary material or Chartered Engineer certification. Credit for the normal period remains subject to factual verification where that evidentiary burden is not discharged.

Extended-period limitation required factual adjudication because the assessee disputed whether the demand was time-barred. The Tribunal had stated that the extended period applied but had not addressed the limitation objection or resolved the underlying factual dispute from the material on record. No final determination on limitation was made. The Tribunal must examine the available factual record and decide the limitation issue before sustaining the demand on the extended-period basis.

CENVAT credit on furnace oil used in a captive power plant remains available where the electricity is exclusively consumed by connected manufacturing units and a jetty forming part of final-product manufacture. Separate registrations and physical distance between units do not defeat eligibility where electricity is neither sold nor diverted outside the manufacturing operations. Inputs may generate intermediate electricity through a job-work arrangement, and non-compliance with prescribed job-work procedure is a procedural irregularity that does not override substantive credit entitlement. As the credit is substantively admissible, penalties for wrongly availed credit are unsustainable.

Fixed facility charges recovered with vacuum insulated storage tanks formed part of the transaction value of gas supplies where they were included in the assessable value for central excise duty under binding Board clarification. As the charges were subjected to excise duty as part of the gas value and identical arrangements had been previously determined on that basis, they were not separate consideration for supplying tangible goods for use without transfer of possession and effective control. Consequently, service tax could not be demanded on those charges as a taxable tangible-goods supply service.

Differential service-tax demands founded solely on mismatches between receipt ledgers and ST-3 returns require corroborative evidence that taxable services were actually provided. Receipts connected with a shelved hotel project, where no construction occurred, are not consideration for Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. Extended limitation requires proof of wilful suppression or deliberate intent to evade tax; non-disclosure alone, particularly where records supported the demand and prior notice existed, is insufficient.

DGCA-recognised Aircraft Maintenance Engineering training provided by a registered training centre qualified as an educational qualification under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and was not liable to service tax under commercial training and coaching service. Rule 133B recognised the institute as a registered training centre, while Rule 61 granted candidates completing AME certification a one-year relaxation from prescribed practical-training requirements. This statutory recognition supported exemption from service tax before and after 2012, rendering the demand under commercial training and coaching service unsustainable.

Reimbursements received by a distributor for sales programmes, promotions and training undertaken for the principal, including reimbursements through SIM cards, recharge coupons and e-recharge vouchers, did not form part of taxable value for service tax. Excluding those expenses from receipts reflected in Form 26AS left the distributor's remaining receipts below the prescribed threshold limit. Consequently, no service tax liability or penalty arose.

Construction of a residential group-housing project involving service performance and transfer or deemed transfer of property in materials constitutes a composite works contract, not service simpliciter. Use of goods, VAT payment and returns, and VAT assessment establish the composite character. Revenue bears the burden of showing that the activity falls outside Works Contract Service. From 1 July 2010, such contracts are specifically taxable as Works Contract Service; Construction of Complex Service does not supersede that classification merely because the contract concerns a residential complex. The service-tax demand was therefore dropped in favour of the assessee.

Service tax paid under a mistake of law was treated as outside the limitation period applicable to refund claims under Section 11B where entitlement on merits had been accepted; refund for the earlier period was therefore available. From 1 October 2014, facilitation of goods supply fell within intermediary services, for which the place of provision was the service provider's location under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Facilitation services supplied to overseas clients consequently did not qualify for refund for the subsequent period. Omission to specifically cite the amended definition in the show-cause notice did not invalidate proceedings where the allegations were clear.

Where the entire service-tax demand in a show-cause notice is dropped after recognising liabilities already determined and discharged, no basis remains for interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 or for a penalty for delayed filing of service-tax returns. Interest and penalty cannot survive independently when no underlying tax liability remains under the notice. The interest demand and delayed-return-filing penalty were therefore unsustainable and set aside.

Service tax paid through the established book-adjustment mechanism is treated as valid payment for the relevant period, preventing a repeat demand. CBIC instructions recognise that legacy book entries may be impracticable to reverse after Government accounts are finalised and prescribe that duty already paid through book adjustment should not be demanded again. Records of service-tax transfer obtained from the Controller General of Accounts provide the evidentiary basis for establishing payment through this mechanism.

Lawfully availed and undisputed CENVAT credit may be utilised under Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to discharge service-tax liability relating to an earlier period, even where the credit accrued subsequently. The timing of credit accrual does not by itself invalidate its use against a prior-period tax liability where the credit is otherwise admissible. A contrary approach treating such utilisation as invalid is unsustainable.

Post-negative-list classification of manufacturing job work as business auxiliary service is unsustainable where plastic granules are converted into distinct marketable PET bottles and jars. The process constitutes manufacture under the Central Excise Act and falls within the manufacture-related negative-list exclusion from service tax. A service-tax exemption notification applicable to taxable services does not govern the manufacturing activity, while the area-based excise exemption remains relevant. Extended limitation requires evidence of intent to evade tax; without such evidence, it cannot validate a demand.

Freight rebates received from C&F agents for liaisoning between exporters and agents constitute consideration for a taxable service where they are not shown to reimburse expenses or to have been passed on to exporters. Where Service Tax was not separately recovered from clients, taxable receipts require cum-duty valuation. Extended limitation requires proof of a positive act of wilful misdeclaration or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; non-registration, non-filing of returns, or audit-detected non-payment alone do not suffice. Service Tax liability is therefore confined to the normal limitation period, with taxable value recalculated on a cum-duty basis and penalty restricted.

The proviso to Section 85(3A) permits an appeal filed within the further one-month condonable period on sufficient cause and does not expressly require a separate condonation application. For a one-day delay where the appellant has been heard, an explanation may be sought rather than treating the omission as a technical bar. Extended service-tax limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade. Non-payment, non-registration, or non-filing of returns alone does not establish that intent, especially where income-tax-return data was available to Revenue. A demand cannot extend beyond the statutory maximum limitation period.