CENVAT credit is admissible for additional customs duty, including countervailing duty paid at a concessional rate on imported coal under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs. Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 independently allows credit of such additional customs duty. The restriction under Rule 3(1)(i), linked to specified Central Excise exemptions, applies to domestically manufactured goods and cannot be read into the Customs notification governing imported coal. Disallowance of credit on that basis is therefore unsustainable.

CENVAT credit should not be denied merely because all invoice copies are unavailable where duty-register entries, vendor records and produced invoices support receipt and accounting of inputs, with no allegation of diversion, non-receipt or clandestine removal. Extended limitation cannot sustain a credit demand once departmental knowledge is evidenced and suppression or misstatement is not established. Consequently, a delayed demand for disputed credit, with related interest and penalty, is unsustainable where the documentary lapse is technical and the substantive receipt of goods remains undisputed.

Individual director penalty under Rule 26(2) is unsustainable where the company was not served with a penalty show-cause notice, the director was not an authorised signatory, and personal involvement is unproved. Liability requires proof that the individual issued, or abetted issuing, invoices without delivery of goods; a corporate transaction alone does not establish vicarious penal liability. Purchasers' reversal of credit is not an admission by the director or company. Investigation statements, including those of truck owners, cannot support liability unless admitted through the mandatory procedure under Section 9D. Lack of supplier infrastructure alone does not prove the director's connivance or abetment.

Applicability of the statutory excise-duty refund and interest regime to voluntary or involuntary deposits, including payments made under mistake or during investigation, remains contested. Conflicting Tribunal views concern both the applicable interest rate and the date from which interest becomes payable. These issues were referred for constitution of a still larger Bench, with no final determination of entitlement, rate, or commencement of interest.

Industrial water-drawal agreements are characterised by their substantive supply of water, not by ancillary obligations to construct conveyance infrastructure or pay charges for authorised quantities. Where the arrangement is a sale of water rather than an assignment of rights to use natural resources, it does not attract service tax on taxable natural-resource-use rights. Reverse-charge service tax that is fully creditable against duty on final products creates revenue neutrality. In those circumstances, the extended limitation period is unavailable; after cessation of the CENVAT credit regime, the corresponding credit amount may be refundable in cash under the transitional framework.

Service tax on a works contract applies only to the service component. The value of goods transferred or used in executing the contract must be excluded from taxable value, determined on either an actual or presumptive basis. VAT liability and any non-payment on the goods component fall within State tax administration and do not permit service tax to be imposed on that component. Valuation that includes the goods value solely because VAT was unpaid is unsustainable.

Service-tax demand for the period up to 30 September 2016 was time-barred because it exceeded the five-year extended limitation period. Works-contract receipts from 1 October 2016 to 30 June 2017 remained taxable to the extent of 33% of gross receipts, with interest but without penalty. Vodafone distributorship commission qualified for the applicable service-tax exemption, so the related demand did not survive. VAT-paid supplies of plastic dustbins, portolet toilets and similar goods constituted sales of goods rather than taxable services; consequently, no service tax was payable on those supplies.

Service-tax proceedings against an individual practising advocate cannot rest solely on Form 26AS entries. The Finance Act, 1994 and Notifications 25/2012-Service Tax and 30/2012-Service Tax require examination of the nature of receipts and the legal-services framework. Failure to undertake that assessment renders the proceedings and confirmed demand jurisdictionally defective and liable to be quashed.

Taxable value of services under a composite turnkey works contract was in issue, specifically whether the value of materials supplied and subject to VAT formed part of the service value. The appeal was dismissed, with no ground found to interfere with the impugned order concerning that valuation.

Complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act filed after 1 July 2024 are governed by the complaint procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The proviso to section 223(1) requires that an accused receive an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken, giving effect to audi alteram partem. Earlier ECIR registration does not displace this requirement where the complaint was filed after commencement of the new procedure. Cognizance taken without the pre-cognizance hearing is illegal and impermissible.

Seized vehicles, cash, jewellery, fixed deposits and deposited title deeds no longer required for a money-laundering investigation are to be released where other group properties have been provisionally attached to secure the stated proceeds of crime. Land parcels represented by deposited title deeds remain distinct from the attached properties. Release occurs without determining the merits of the provisional attachment or other pending proceedings.

The price recorded in a liquidator's sale certificate following a transparent, competitive e-auction conducted under NCLT supervision constitutes the true market value for Maharashtra stamp-duty purposes where registered valuers fixed the reserve price, public notice was issued, and no intentional suppression or undervaluation is shown. The Annual Statement of Rates mechanism addresses undervaluation and cannot, by itself, displace a price established through such a properly supervised liquidation sale. A Collector therefore cannot reassess the property solely because the Annual Statement of Rates produces a higher valuation.

Model-wise import restrictions for used multifunction print and copying machines applied the 100-unit criterion collectively across all ports and importers, rather than separately at each port. In the absence of a centralised all-India monitoring mechanism, differing port-level practices could not support withholding part of a consignment. Where a provisional duty bond and bank guarantee secured the entire consignment, retention of any machines lacked justification. Provisional release on the stipulated security was therefore appropriate.

Interest paid on import duty is refundable where an importer initiated timely payment but an ICEGATE technical failure delayed reflection of the Electronic Cash Ledger credit. Section 47 of the Customs Act and the Customs (Waiver of Interest) 3rd Order support waiver in such circumstances. The advisory acknowledging continued portal inability until 27 July 2023 establishes that the delay arose from system malfunction rather than importer default. The waiver remains available even where Bills of Entry were filed after 13 April 2023, provided the delayed payment reflection resulted from the portal failure.

Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 requires a written initiating notice within 90 days of receipt of an offence report. The initiating notice did not disclose the report's receipt date. Departmental knowledge of the alleged contraventions existed no later than adjudication of the related customs notice on 9 September 2015, making the initiating notice issued on 11 March 2016 beyond the mandatory period. The time limit cannot be disregarded because the allegations may otherwise be sustainable on merits; delayed proceedings are vitiated and the penalty cannot survive.

Combined vehicle radio-receiver/DVD units fitted in a common housing are composite machines governed by Note 3 to Section XVI, requiring classification by principal function. Principal function must be established from the machine's nature, construction and working; promotional material alone is insufficient. Reclassification to video-reproduction apparatus requires cogent technical evidence, including relevant construction, circuitry, component allocation or functional capability. Where principal function cannot be determined, the equally meriting headings are resolved under the last-in-numerical-order rule, supporting classification under CTI 8527 29 00. Failure to establish a contrary classification preserves the declared classification and the related customs-notification benefit.

Non-notified betel nuts do not attract the reverse burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962; Revenue must establish foreign origin and illicit importation through cogent evidence. Invoices identifying domestic consignors and consignees, interception away from the Indo-Myanmar border, and an inconclusive report suggesting possible North-East or Myanmar origin did not prove smuggling. Statements unsupported by independent evidence were insufficient to establish illegal importation. Consequently, confiscation of the betel nuts and related penalties were unsustainable.

Penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act require admissible evidence of a person's involvement with confiscation-liable goods and proof that the person knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. Third-party statements cannot support liability unless the examination-in-chief requirement under Section 138B is met. An allegation that a person was an intended recipient of seized gold, without independent evidence of receipt, possession, control, transport, concealment, financing, or other dealing, does not establish the required knowledge. The penalties were therefore set aside.

Penalties imposed on Chartered Engineers cannot stand once the principal import proceedings and their associated demand, interest, confiscation and penalties have been invalidated. The alleged under-valuation lacked corroborative evidence, revaluation was arbitrary, and the proceedings were time-barred. With no enforceable underlying demand or related penal consequence, no independent basis remains for penal action against the Chartered Engineers; the penalties were therefore set aside.

IGST assessable value for goods imported under a duty-free import authorisation includes the value of imported goods and customs duty actually chargeable. Where an applicable exemption reduces basic customs duty to nil, the effective nil duty, rather than the tariff-rate duty, applies to the valuation computation. A nil duty debit under the authorisation confirms that no basic customs duty is chargeable. Electronic assessment cannot add tariff-rate basic customs duty notionally while disregarding the available exemption.