Eligible Manufacturer Importer Scheme enrolment is streamlined by reducing manual data requirements and limiting mandatory uploads to the Udyam Registration Certificate where MSME status is claimed, a prescribed Chartered Accountant's Certificate bearing UDIN, and an authorisation letter. Backend IT verification replaces several earlier document uploads, but eligibility safeguards remain. Applicants must provide core identity, GST, manufacturing and compliance particulars, declare their financial and legal status, and disclose earlier EMI applications. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate must address solvency and financial capability and explain negative net worth or negative net current assets.

De novo quantification of construction-service tax liability required application of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and reconciliation of Form 26AS with the books of account. Repeating the earlier demand confirmation without undertaking the directed requantification was unsustainable. Year-wise reconciliation had been furnished, and tax identified as payable through that exercise had been deposited. The demand confirmation was set aside with consequential relief.

Statutory appeals under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act must be filed within three months, with condonation available for a further one month on sufficient cause. Where an appeal was filed beyond both periods, the delay was nevertheless condoned in view of its extent, factual issues requiring appellate consideration, and a co-ordinate bench decision. The appellate order was set aside, and the appellate authority was required to decide the matter according to law while keeping all merits contentions open.

State GST authorities lack territorial jurisdiction to detain or seize goods merely transiting through their State when the goods are undisputedly destined for delivery in another State. Goods moving from Delhi to West Bengal only passed through Uttar Pradesh and were not intended for delivery there. Accordingly, the detention, consequential penalty and appellate order lacked jurisdiction and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Interest on delayed GST refunds must first be claimed before the statutory authority under the refund framework in sections 54 and 56 of the GST Act, 2017. The statutory process governs both the refund claim and entitlement to interest for delay. Recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available only after exhaustion of statutory remedies; an aggrieved claimant may invoke that jurisdiction if dissatisfaction remains following adjudication by the appropriate authority.

Retrospective regularisation of input tax credit applies to financial years 2017-18 through 2020-21 where the return under the CGST framework was filed by 30 November 2021. Section 16(5) operates as a curative amendment from 1 July 2017, bringing returns for April 2018 to March 2019 filed within the extended cut-off within the permitted credit regime. Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the relevant returns were filed after the original time limit but by the prescribed extended date.

Meaningful opportunity of hearing requires the personal hearing to follow expiry of the time allowed for replying to a show-cause notice. Fixing the hearing earlier denies the taxable person an effective opportunity to respond and breaches principles of natural justice. An assessment order is invalid where a reply opportunity is not provided before the personal hearing; the taxable person must be permitted to file a reply and then receive a personal hearing.

State GST authorities cannot detain or seize goods merely passing through their territory during inter-State transit where the goods are destined for another State. The territorial power to detain and seize does not extend to goods moving from Delhi to West Bengal solely because they transit Uttar Pradesh. On that basis, the appellate order upholding detention was quashed, the goods were directed to be released, and any amount deposited was directed to be refunded.

Interest on delayed tax payment under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax framework arises only where tax remains unpaid by the due date prescribed by the statute and rules. Dealers qualifying for six-monthly returns may pay tax by the due dates applicable to those returns; compliance cannot be treated as default because of higher turnover in the relevant year, a timing benefit, perceived legislative intent, alleged unjust enrichment, or an alleged colourable device. Section 85(2)(b-3) excludes an appeal against an interest-demand order, supporting writ jurisdiction where no efficacious appellate remedy exists. Interest imposed contrary to the prescribed payment schedule lacks statutory authority and engages Article 265.

Central excise duty demands on stock transfers to sister units were unsustainable where the recipient units could avail CENVAT credit of the duty paid. Because the duty liability at the transferring unit was fully creditable to the receiving units, the transactions were revenue-neutral. Revenue neutrality therefore defeated the duty demands in respect of clearances to sister units.

Independent central excise registration and payment of duty by a job worker support its recognition as a separate manufacturer. Manufacture of 10 kg tin containers cannot be attributed to the principal assessee merely because the job worker undertakes production. Attribution requires admissible evidence that the job worker is a dummy unit, such as financial flow-back, profit sharing, common funding, or comparable control indicators. Where dealings are on a principal-to-principal basis, the job worker's manufacturing cost cannot be included in the assessable value of goods manufactured by the assessee. Related excise-duty demands are consequently unsustainable.

Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit on supplementary invoices unless the supplier's differential-duty liability resulted from non-levy or short-levy involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Where prior proceedings conclusively establish that the supplier's short-payment or non-payment did not arise from any of those excluded circumstances, supplementary invoices remain valid credit documents. CENVAT credit on the disputed supplementary invoices is therefore admissible to the assessee.

Concessional-duty benefit cannot be denied merely because Cenvat credit was availed where the revenue does not establish that credit related exclusively to inputs or input services used to manufacture the concessional product. Sludge generated as a by-product during Gelatin manufacture, and common inputs used to process that sludge into Nutri Gold, do not prove exclusive credit availment for Nutri Gold. Unsupported findings concerning exclusive use of inputs, including HDPE bottles, cannot sustain denial of the notification benefit. Consequently, the related duty demands and penalties fail.

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.