Service of Customs appellate orders through registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due is required for limitation to commence. A Document Identification Number authenticates an order but does not establish its electronic upload or valid service. Where prescribed service was not proved, limitation for second appeals ran from actual receipt, making the appeals timely. Where the final day for filing first appeals fell on a Sunday, the Limitation Act permitted filing on the next working day, so the first appeals remained maintainable. The demands require determination on merits at the first appellate stage.

Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act establish mutually exclusive appellate routes. Section 35G excludes questions concerning the rate of duty or valuation for assessment, while Section 35L directs questions of taxability or excisability connected with assessment to the Supreme Court. Classification of services as falling outside Goods Transport Agency service concerns service taxability and assessment. Consequently, an appeal challenging that classification does not lie before the High Court under Section 35G and must be pursued before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.

Under Notification No. 18/2009-ST, non-submission of Form EXP2 does not by itself defeat a service tax refund where the prescribed information is otherwise available in the records. Form EXP2 is treated as a procedural filing requirement capable of condonation, rather than a substantive condition of exemption. In contrast, endorsement of foreign-agent commission in shipping bills is a substantive requirement. Refund is admissible for shipping bills bearing that endorsement. For unendorsed shipping bills, entitlement depends on verification of the explanation for non-endorsement, the agency agreement, and remittance evidence linked to the relevant exports.

Reverse-charge liability for foreign-bank charges under the Service Tax Rules and Finance Act arises only where the Indian exporter is proved to be the recipient of an identified taxable service through privity of contract or an equivalent service relationship. Charges ultimately borne by the exporter do not alone establish recipient status; for collection of export proceeds, the Indian bank may instead receive the foreign bank's service. A composite demand that does not separately identify overseas commission and banking services is unsustainable. Extended limitation and equal penalty require evidence of suppression or mala fide intent and are unavailable where audit records disclosed the facts and revenue neutrality exists.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, timely payment of the determined amount and withdrawal of a pending appeal are substantive conditions for a discharge certificate, while furnishing proof of withdrawal is procedural. Where payment and a withdrawal request were made during the Scheme's operation, delayed court listing and formal withdrawal during the COVID-19 disruption could not defeat settlement. The principle that no party should suffer from a court's act or delay required manual processing of the request. Denial of Form SVLDRS-4 and revival of the settled demand were therefore unsustainable.

Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act treats proceeds of crime as property derived or obtained from criminal activity, including the value of that property. The reference to property value permits provisional attachment of untainted property of equivalent value where the actual tainted assets cannot be traced, have been siphoned off, vanished, or laundered. Limiting attachment to property directly linked to a scheduled offence would deprive the equivalent-value provision of effect. Property acquired before the scheduled offence may therefore be attached when necessary to secure unavailable proceeds of crime.

Interim bail on medical grounds may be considered under the sick and infirm exception to the Prevention of Money-laundering Act where prison-based treatment is inadequate and continued detention compromises personal liberty under Article 21. Serious spinal illness requiring ongoing treatment, an undisputed medical condition, and more than five years of pre-trial custody supported interim release. Restrictive bail conditions under the Act do not displace constitutional protection of life and liberty when medical infirmity and prolonged trial justify relief. Interim bail was granted without examining the merits of the prosecution case.

Recall jurisdiction over ex parte procedural orders must be exercised consistently with procedural fairness. An application cannot be treated as substantially delayed when it was filed under express liberty granted by the Adjudicating Authority, especially where an earlier application mistakenly targeted a later order, its reply was already on record, and the substantive proceeding remained pending. The delay-based rejection was unsustainable; the ex parte order was recalled as against the appellant, enabling it to contest the pending proceeding.

Section 10A does not bar a Section 7 CIRP application where the actual default occurred before the suspension period, even if Form I mistakenly records a later date arising from non-payment under a One-Time Settlement. Failure of the settlement restores the original debt position rather than creating a fresh default. A default-date error and other procedural defects may be rectified where cure does not affect merits or jurisdiction, and supporting documents may be placed on record. At admission, the enquiry remains confined to financial debt, default and application completeness; unsupported assertions of solvency or commercial viability do not displace CIRP admission. A reasoned admission order should record the material establishing debt and qualifying default.

Fit and proper status for enrolment as an insolvency professional cannot be denied solely because disciplinary proceedings remain pending where the punishment removing the applicant from the professional register has been stayed in appeal. Under clause 4(1)(g) of the Insolvency Professionals Regulations, the applicant remained registered and permitted to perform professional duties while the punishment was in abeyance. The distinction between staying the punishment and continuing disciplinary proceedings did not support a finding of unfitness. The enrolment rejection was set aside, requiring fresh consideration without influence from the pending appeal.

Defence-aircraft customs exemption for imported parts, sub-assemblies and accessories operates on functional character and qualifying end use rather than individual tariff classification. Prefabricated missile-warning system components integrated into a military helicopter's electronic-warfare suite may fall within the exemption where their exclusive defence nexus is established. Eligibility remains conditional on satisfying the prescribed certification requirement at importation; end-use documents do not replace that certificate. Advance-ruling admission requires a valid importer-exporter code, a question on proposed imports, payment of the prescribed fee, and no identical pending or previously decided question for the applicant. Classification and consignment-level verification remain for import assessment.

Kitchen exhaust hoods incorporating an integral fan remain classified as hoods, rather than fans, where the fan forms only one component of an assembly including casing, dampers, filters, grease-collection equipment, lighting and related fittings. Heading 8414 separately identifies fans and ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan, while Tariff Item 8414 60 00 applies only where the maximum horizontal side does not exceed 120 cm. Hoods exceeding that dimension, for which no specific tariff item applies, fall under the residual Tariff Item 8414 80 90 rather than Tariff Item 8414 59 90.

LCD panels imported for use in power meters fall under the specific tariff entry for LCD devices where Chapter Note 2(a) requires classification by their own description, notwithstanding their use as meter parts. The indicator-panel and residual meter-parts entries do not apply because the specific LCD-device classification prevails. The unresolved classification position does not support an extended limitation period for differential duty or consequential redemption fine and penalties, including penalties imposed on a customs broker. This treatment removes the associated customs, confiscatory and penal liabilities.

Final duty-paid regularisation of EPCG imports after payment of foregone duty and interest places export-obligation fulfilment within DGFT's licensing jurisdiction. Once such regularisation occurs, Customs cannot treat notification conditions as breached to support confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty for improper importation. The customs duty and interest liability remains unaffected where not disputed. Duty foregone is determined from the assessable value declared in the relevant bill of entry, rather than the licence value.

Customs exemption entries for solar photovoltaic machinery and backsheets apply according to their express language and relevant technical or trade usage. Machinery performing integrated stringing, lay-up, bussing and lamination functions establishes circuit patterns on sensitised photovoltaic semiconductor cells and qualifies as apparatus for drawing such patterns without requiring photolithographic technology. Multilayered solar PV backsheets containing a PVF layer qualify as tedlar-base sheets without manufacturer-specific sourcing or authorisation requirements. Where imported goods are accurately declared, acceptance of a higher IGST rate alone does not establish misdeclaration. Final assessment and home-consumption clearance, coupled with the absence of seizure or bond release, also undermine confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.

Seized imported goods lying in a Special Economic Zone and not cleared for home consumption may be re-exported while customs adjudication of alleged tariff misclassification remains pending. Re-export is conditional upon execution of a bond securing the differential duty and furnishing a bank guarantee for 5% of the re-determined value. The permission applies where the goods remain under seizure during the investigation.

Exemption-notification amendments operate prospectively unless they expressly provide for retrospective effect. Where bills of lading pre-date an amendment, it cannot govern those imports or justify refusing consideration of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Provisional release must be assessed under the law applicable on the relevant import dates and granted upon compliance with conditions lawfully imposed under that provision.

Exemption-notification amendments operate prospectively unless they expressly provide otherwise. An amendment commencing after the bill of lading cannot govern imports covered by that earlier bill or be used to refuse consideration of provisional release under the Customs Act. Requests for provisional release must instead be considered under applicable law, with release available subject to imposed conditions.

Board instructions under section 131BA regulate departmental appeals before CESTAT through prescribed monetary thresholds. Appeals with tax effect below the applicable limit may be withdrawn, including pending appeals. Low tax effect constitutes a basis for treating a departmental appeal as non-maintainable. The framework concerns the Board's power to issue instructions governing the institution and continuation of departmental appeals.

Pecuniary jurisdiction for scrutiny proceedings rests with the ITO where returned income falls below the prescribed threshold under the applicable CBDT instruction. A notice under Section 143(2) issued by an ACIT without allocated pecuniary jurisdiction is invalid where no prior transfer of jurisdiction has been made under Section 127. Subsequent completion of the assessment by the ITO does not cure the defect in initiating scrutiny proceedings. The consequential assessment lacks legal validity because it derives from an invalid jurisdictional notice.