CENVAT credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 extends to inputs used in research and development operations that support the manufacture of excisable final products. Research and development constitutes an ancillary or incidental manufacturing activity where its results ultimately contribute to those products. Credit cannot be denied absent any finding or allegation that the research and development operations were unrelated to the manufacturing activity or final products.

Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only where common credit is used for dutiable and exempted goods. Bagasse is treated as agricultural waste, not a manufactured excisable product. Consequently, surplus electricity generated from bagasse and sold outside the factory does not trigger the 6% payment mechanism, and no payment based on its sale value is required.

Railway-specific printed stationery intended exclusively for internal use is not dutiable where its printing gives it the essential character of products of the printing industry, placing it in Chapter 49 rather than Chapter 48. Excisability also requires marketability: articles bearing railway-specific particulars and usable only within the railway administration were not shown to be capable of being bought and sold. The central excise demand, interest and consequential penalty were therefore unsustainable.

Exemption for specified non-conventional energy devices and systems applies to a Dual Fuel Burner System supplied as a commercially and functionally integrated biomass-gasification installation; its individual components should not be separately classified to deny relief. Extension of exemption to specified parts does not displace eligibility of the complete system. Extended limitation for excise duty requires established suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. Voluntary disclosure of clearances and an interpretive exemption dispute do not meet those conditions, rendering the demand time-barred and the related interest and mandatory penalty unsustainable.

Valuation of excisable goods requires a nexus between any buyer-funded additional consideration and the transaction value of those goods. Separately charged mould-modification or repair services relating to existing moulds, whose original cost was already amortised, do not constitute additional consideration merely because the moulds are used in manufacture. Extended limitation and penalty require fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty; disclosed records, returns, invoices and service-tax payments, coupled with an interpretative valuation dispute, do not establish those elements. Accordingly, separate mould-modification charges do not create excise liability in the stated circumstances.

Approval of an insolvency resolution plan binds confirmed government dues, including duty, interest and penalties, and causes abatement of the manufacturer's pending appeal under the Tribunal Procedure Rules. Excise duty liability follows the person clearing goods on excise invoices, even where that person is not the manufacturer; expenses incurred before clearance form part of assessable value. A transferee clearing acquired excisable stock from taken-over premises remains liable for duty and interest. Penalties requiring intent to evade duty or prior confiscation cannot be sustained without those elements, although established involvement in duty-evasion acts may attract a general penalty.

Education Cess and Higher Education Cess refunded under appellate orders applying the then-prevailing position on exempt excise duty remain protected where those orders attained finality. A subsequent overruling does not reopen such settled refunds. Where cess was later redeposited under protest, refund of the entire redeposited amount is available despite pending appeals concerning certain appellate refund orders, subject to an equivalent bank guarantee. The refund remains contingent on the outcome of pending appeals or other proceedings, while the guarantee safeguards revenue interests.

Foreign visa-processing services supplied under a bilateral arrangement are not intermediary services because intermediary status requires facilitation of a supply between two distinct parties. Their place of provision is therefore the recipient's location in India, making service tax payable under reverse charge. Visa fees remitted to the UAE Government through the foreign provider do not constitute consideration for the provider's services and are excluded from taxable value; only the provider's service charges are taxable. Non-disclosure of the foreign-service receipts until audit supports invocation of the extended limitation period, with interest and penalty recalculated on the revised tax liability.

Service tax valuation excludes separately invoiced freight and insurance reimbursements from the taxable value of erection and commissioning services where they represent actual amounts paid and not consideration for the taxable service. Service tax remained payable on the erection and commissioning charges, while goods transport agency liability was discharged under the reverse charge mechanism. In the absence of evidence that the recoveries exceeded actual freight and insurance costs, those reimbursements were not includible in the service value.

Cleaning, sanitation, garbage-removal, platform and coach maintenance, and onboard-housekeeping services supplied to Indian Railways perform municipal functions concerning public health, sanitation conservancy and solid-waste management and fall within the Entry 25(a) service-tax exemption. Extended limitation cannot rest on suppression where relevant financial statements, tax-information forms and returns were available for departmental scrutiny and intent to evade is unproved. Return non-filing or delay remains independently subject to statutory penalty and late fee. An investigation deposit against an unsustainable tax liability is refundable with applicable interest rather than subject to the service-tax refund procedure. An allegation that collected tax was retained requires conclusive proof of non-deposit.

Transportation forming the principal element of a composite arrangement, with loading merely ancillary, is classifiable as transportation rather than Cargo Handling Service under Section 66F(3)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994. Loading at a single point and separate contractual and billing arrangements did not establish specialised cargo-handling activity. Tax already discharged under a centralised registration cannot be demanded again under a surrendered registration for the same service and value. The extended limitation period was unavailable where the notice relied on income-tax returns and Form 26AS and the dispute concerned service classification. The service-tax demands, interest and penalties were consequently set aside.

Dealer incentives, discounts and reimbursement amounts linked to sales targets, spare-parts purchases, vehicle sales and customer discounts do not constitute consideration for agreeing to do an act. A declared service requires a distinct contractual obligation to refrain from, tolerate or perform an act, with a necessary and sufficient nexus between that obligation and the payment. Principal-to-principal dealer-manufacturer arrangements and ordinary sales-linked receipts lack that separate service element. Such payments remain trade discounts or incentives and are not liable to service tax merely because they are recorded as income.

Proportionate reimbursements of electricity, water, municipal taxes, maintenance and other common outgoings under a no-rent arrangement were not part of taxable consideration for the pre-amendment period. Section 67 did not then include reimbursable expenditure, and Rule 5(1) could not enlarge the statutory valuation base. The later inclusion of reimbursable expenses operated prospectively. Extended limitation also required suppression with intent to evade tax; registration, regular returns, transparent expense-sharing, and no recovery beyond actual expenses did not establish that condition. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable on valuation and independently time-barred.

The "sick or infirm" exception to the regular-bail restriction applies disjunctively and does not require a terminal, irreversible, imminently life-threatening condition or surgery. Eligibility depends on present physical functioning and whether custody can effectively and continuously provide the required treatment. Advanced age, spinal pathology, osteoporosis, restricted and painful movement, need for supervised rehabilitation, and cardiac management may cumulatively establish substantial physical impairment. Hospital referrals, investigations, medication, and conservative treatment do not alone demonstrate that adequate rehabilitation and supervision are available in custody. A pre-existing injury does not bar relief, while risks concerning witnesses or evidence may be addressed through strict bail conditions.

Suspension of an insolvency professional's registration applies across all insolvency assignments because registration is the statutory basis for acting in any insolvency process. Intimation of suspension to Committees of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority operationalises that consequence and does not exercise the separate replacement power of a Committee of Creditors. Ad-interim relief against a public-interest disciplinary order requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; no sufficiently strong basis was established. Regulation 18(3) was treated as governing agenda placement without prima facie requiring prior intra-class majority approval. The requested stay was declined, while proportionality and disciplinary merits remain open for final determination.

Approved resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bind governmental authorities and freeze or extinguish pre-transfer income-tax claims omitted from the plan. The Code's overriding effect prevails over the Income-tax Act power to adjust refunds against outstanding tax demands. Consequently, excluded statutory tax dues cannot be pursued as pre-transfer liabilities, obtain priority over secured creditors, or support tax notices, consequential orders, refund adjustments, or fresh and reassessment proceedings for the relevant period. Refunds adjusted against such pre-transfer demands must be repaid with applicable interest.

Limitation for appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was considered in the context of COVID-19-related extension of limitation and condonable delay. An inordinate delay resulted in dismissal of the civil appeal on the ground of delay, notwithstanding the limitation-extension context.

Payment of the entire differential customs duty before a show cause notice, coupled with satisfaction of the statutory requirements under Section 28(5), renders proceedings conclusive under Section 28(6). Once those conditions are met, a subsequent demand for differential duty and related penalties cannot be sustained. This consequence applies equally where identical facts arise under the same show cause notice.

Final DGFT interpretation under the Foreign Trade Policy treating two incorporated entities as Group Companies binds Customs authorities, permitting intercompany use of duty-credit scrips and port-handling earnings for export-obligation fulfilment. Helicopter parts imported under SFIS/SHIS qualify as capital goods where helicopters support personnel transport and project monitoring for infrastructure operations; a civil-aviation classification as private use does not establish personal use or breach of the Actual User Condition. The associated exemption therefore applies, invalidating the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. Extended limitation cannot apply absent deliberate non-disclosure, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty; prior disclosures and permissions independently defeated that basis.

Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Private Warehouse Licensing Regulations, 2016 disqualifies an applicant only where it has been penalised for an offence under the Customs Act, rather than merely subjected to a civil monetary penalty for a customs contravention. Customs offences fall within the criminal-offence framework, distinct from civil adjudication of contraventions. Disclosure of pending customs matters does not itself establish disqualification, particularly where the prescribed antecedent-verification procedure has not been shown to be followed. Rejection of a private bonded warehouse licence solely on prior customs adjudication proceedings is therefore legally unsustainable.