Exemption for Vanaspati was available because the notification's exclusion applies only where goods both bear a brand name and are packed in unit containers for retail sale. A brand name must be used on the product to indicate a trade connection; its appearance only on invoices does not establish use on the goods. Revenue must prove that goods cleared after 1 March 2003 bore the brand name, and prior branded manufacture creates only suspicion. Consequently, the duty demand and interest failed. Penalty under Section 11AC was also unsustainable because no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression to evade duty was established.

Recovery of a sanctioned CENVAT credit refund cannot rest on an appellate order that has been set aside. Where the appellate tribunal has finally upheld refund entitlement under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and found the claim within limitation, the adjudicating authority must give direct effect to that operative determination. A demand-cum-show cause notice founded on the nullified appellate premise is unsustainable, requiring the recovery demand and notice to be set aside.

Service-tax abatement under the applicable notifications remained available because the CENVAT credit availed related solely to a period preceding the notifications and was not attributable to the relevant abatement period. The condition barring credit applies to CENVAT credit availed for the period under consideration, not to unrelated prior-period credit. Consequently, prior-period CENVAT credit did not disqualify the assessee from claiming the service-tax abatement.

Licensing kitchen premises to food-court operators fell within renting of immovable property service once that distinct taxable entry took effect on 1 July 2007. A separately introduced taxable entry indicates that the activity was not covered by the pre-existing business support service category. Business support service cannot operate as a residuary basis to tax the licensing arrangement before the renting-service entry commenced; consequently, no service-tax liability arose under that earlier category for the prior period.

Construction work undertaken for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited does not fall within taxable construction of residential complex service. Established decisions on the identical issue govern the classification, and the departmental circular relied upon to confirm the demand cannot support a contrary result. The demand was therefore unsustainable, with the issue resolved in favour of the assessee.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient. Where the show-cause notice and subsequent orders do not record facts establishing those statutory ingredients or deliberate intent to evade service tax, the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) is unavailable. The demand is therefore time-barred, and consequential interest and penalties are set aside, without affecting tax amounts already deposited.

Service-tax proceedings were time-barred because the show-cause notice was issued more than five years after the last relevant transaction reflected in Form 26AS. With the last transaction dated 30 September 2013 and notice issued on 12 October 2018, even the extended limitation period had expired. The demand was consequently unsustainable without examining its merits, and the limitation finding operated in favour of the assessee.

Service-tax demands based solely on differences between financial statements and ST-3 returns require identification of taxable services and evidence of escaped taxable consideration; timing differences, exempt receipts and tax collections may explain discrepancies. Input-service credit covers services connected with output services, including facilities, maintenance, advertising, telecom, travel, lease and import-clearance services, but excludes pooja expenses and credit-card payments. Credit requires invoices in the claimant's own name and proof of service receipt; invoices issued to separate entities do not suffice. DG-set maintenance credit follows where tax is paid on the relevant activity. Regular ST-3 filing and turnover differences alone do not establish suppression for extended limitation or penalties.

Business Auxiliary Service demands for freight rebates, brokerage, incentives, airway bill fees and cargo-space margins require proof that the receipts are consideration for an identified taxable service. A notice must specify the applicable statutory limb of Business Auxiliary Service; a demand under an unproposed category cannot be sustained. Accounting entries or income labels alone do not establish a taxable-service nexus. Where earlier proceedings concern the same issues, an interpretational dispute without evidence of wilful suppression or intent to evade tax cannot justify extended limitation or consequential penalties. The stated outcome treats the demand, interest and penalties as legally unsustainable.

Equivalent-value attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act may extend to an accused's untainted asset, including property acquired before the scheduled offence, when actual proceeds of crime have been siphoned off, are unavailable, or cannot be traced. Legitimate disclosure of the asset's purchase funds does not preclude attachment where the asset is targeted solely as a substitute for untraceable proceeds, rather than as property derived from criminal activity. Attachment of jointly held property remains permissible where it is restricted to the quantified proceeds attributable to the accused and does not reach the non-accused spouse's share. The measure is limited to the value of the illicit gain.

The memorandum's main objects clause governed corporate capacity to invest preferential issue proceeds in virtual digital assets. An amendment placing virtual digital asset activities only among matters necessary for furtherance of existing objects did not amend the company's main objects or create an independent authority to undertake that business. Virtual digital asset activities became authorised only when specifically inserted into the main objects clause. Investments made before certification of that amendment, and consequential actions, fell outside the memorandum, were ultra vires and void, and could not be ratified.

Annulment of a securities trade extinguishes the delivery transaction where the Exchange has received the buyer's purchase consideration. The buyer cannot be required to accept delivery after annulment, and the Exchange must restore the deposited consideration rather than treat the claim as one for trading losses. The clearing mechanism does not necessarily create a direct contractual relationship between buyer and selling broker; the broker is not a necessary party where no relief is sought against it and an effective decree can be passed without it. Arbitration, closing-out provisions, and indemnity under Bye-Law 315J do not bar restitution absent a relevant dispute-resolution reference.

Customs Act penalties for abetment or facilitation of gold smuggling require evidence that an officer knowingly performed an act or omission connected with the smuggling, or dealt with the smuggled goods. Acquaintance with the principal offender, introducing another officer, and receiving loans or gifts do not by themselves establish liability under Section 112(a) or Section 112(b). Although such receipts may attract service-conduct or anti-corruption action, they do not prove knowing facilitation of smuggled-gold clearance. On the stated material, penalties against the two Customs officers were unsustainable.

Delayed clearance of warehoused goods beyond the permitted period under the Customs Act may trigger duty consequences, confiscation, penalty and redemption fine. Where the importer establishes justified circumstances for the delay, including commercial obsolescence and disruption, the delay does not constitute wilful suppression warranting penal consequences. Duty and interest remain payable for the delayed clearance, while redemption fine and penalty are not warranted where the delay is adequately explained.

Confiscation of notified gold requires a seizure founded on reasonable belief, supported by objective material, that the particular goods are smuggled. Remelted gold without foreign refinery or mint markings, unsupported by evidence of its country, mode, point, or person of illicit importation, does not establish foreign origin or smuggled character. FASTag data contradicting the recorded interception details, uncorroborated retracted statements, and denial of cross-examination materially weaken the confiscation basis. Tax invoices, supplier confirmation, and banking records support domestic acquisition. Consequently, confiscation requirements and the knowledge or involvement necessary for consequential penalties remain unproved.

EPCG concessional-duty benefit remained available where allegations of export-obligation non-fulfilment arose before expiry of the prescribed period, undisputed foreign-exchange earnings demonstrated compliance with the actual-user condition, and vehicle registration or insurance details did not establish breach of EPCG conditions. Registration of the imported vehicle as a tourist taxi did not, by itself, defeat the benefit. Delayed production of the EODC/redemption letter did not establish non-compliance where the DGFT issued it after timely applications and supporting documents had been submitted. Denial of the concession, consequential duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore unsustainable.

Section 110A of the Customs Act permits provisional release of all seized goods, subject to the competent authority's statutory discretion. CBIC Circular No. 35/2017-Cus. cannot categorically exclude prohibited goods, non-compliant goods, or goods notified under Section 123 from provisional release where the statute contains no such exclusions. Executive instructions may supplement statutory administration but cannot override, dilute, or impose restrictions inconsistent with the parent provision. Accordingly, goods notified under Section 123 remain eligible for consideration for provisional release under Section 110A.

Provisional attachment and debit freezes under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act require proceedings under the Act, prior approval from the competent Commissioner, and a written order based on an opinion that protection of revenue or prevention of smuggling necessitates the measure. Unapproved attachment orders and unsupported debit freezes do not satisfy these safeguards, while later written orders supported by competent approval and recorded reasons may remain effective. Extension of an attachment requires written reasons communicated before expiry and a pre-decisional hearing. A later hearing or fresh order during writ proceedings does not cure an extension issued without those requirements. Pending adjudication may continue, with fresh protective measures available only through statutory compliance.

Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 bars suits, claims and actions instituted after its commencement to enforce rights as the alleged real owner of benami property, even where the underlying sale transactions pre-date the Act. A possession claim based on alleged real ownership likewise constitutes prohibited enforcement of a benami arrangement. Original sellers who executed sale deeds in favour of the ostensible purchaser have divested title and cannot recover possession on that basis. The statutory consequence identified for benami property is acquisition by the Central Government without payment, rather than restoration of title to the original sellers.

Section 143(1)(a) permits only specified prima facie adjustments and requires prior written or electronic intimation of any proposed adjustment, followed by consideration of the taxpayer's response. Denial of exemption under section 10(23EA) without prior intimation is procedurally invalid. Where the exemption's applicability, including the effect of section 11(7), requires examination of relevant facts and legal position, the claim cannot be treated as an incorrect claim apparent from the return. Failure to consider the response to a proposed adjustment further invalidates the processing. Such exemption denial falls outside the permissible scope of return processing under section 143(1)(a).