Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives first priority to a secured creditor's dues where the security interest is registered with CERSAI. A bank's registered security interest therefore prevails over revenue dues supported only by an unregistered CGST charge. A provisional attachment under the CGST Act does not displace that statutory priority. Consequently, a restraint on issuing no-objection certificates for secured flats cannot stand where it impedes the registered secured creditor's rights.

Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires that the goods be liable to confiscation and that the person knew or had reason to believe this. Rule 25 requires consideration of the goods' confiscability. Where a show-cause notice neither proposes confiscation nor establishes that the goods were liable to confiscation, and no such finding is recorded, the statutory conditions for a Rule 26 penalty are not satisfied. The penalty is therefore unsustainable and must be set aside.

Specific nil-rate excise exemptions for Bhujia, namkeen and similar ready-for-consumption preparations apply to Bhujia and Cheese Balls even when sold in sealed retail packages. Residual entries for packaged ready-to-eat foods, including entries limited to goods not cleared in sealed containers, apply only where the goods do not meet the specific exemption description. A sealed-container restriction stated in a separate residual entry cannot be read into the specific exemption. Tariff Item 2106 90 99 remains within parent Tariff Sub-heading 2106 90; classification at the eight-digit level therefore does not exclude qualifying goods from an exemption referring to that sub-heading.

Construction intended for sale falls outside the declared-service category where the entire consideration is received after the competent authority issues a completion certificate. Accordingly, receipts obtained after the occupancy certificate are not liable to Service Tax. Proceedings based on a show-cause notice served after expiry of the applicable limitation period are unsustainable, so a Service Tax demand founded on post-completion receipts and a time-barred notice cannot be sustained.

Collection of service tax from recipients requires immediate deposit under the Finance Act, 1994. Non-deposit of collected tax, coupled with non-disclosure in balance sheets and failure to file statutory returns, constitutes suppression of facts and intentional evasion for invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to section 73(1). A confirmed service-tax demand attracts statutory interest under section 75. Failure to pay collected tax may attract penalty under section 77, while suppression of facts justifies penalty under section 78. Liability for collected, undisclosed and unpaid service tax remains enforceable with consequential interest and penalties.

Failure to track an amendment withdrawing or limiting an exemption notification does not excuse non-payment of service tax. A registered service provider claiming an exemption must monitor changes affecting eligibility. The extended period under the proviso to section 73(1) applies where taxable services remain unpaid after available exemption and abatement are allowed. For the post-amendment period, reasonable-cause protection under section 80 is unavailable, and section 78 requires an equal penalty. Surviving service-tax liability, interest and penalty remain enforceable.

Fund allocations transmitted through NEC for governmental activities, without a service provider-recipient relationship, do not constitute consideration for taxable services. Statutory and sovereign functions performed by public authorities, where prescribed collections are remitted to Government and no amount is retained, fall outside service-tax liability; this principle applied to work performed for NTPC where the invoiced service tax was not paid. Extended limitation requires suppression of facts: a bona fide belief concerning sovereign functions, governmental grants forming the principal demand, and non-collection of tax do not establish suppression. Service-tax demands consequently failed on merits and, for the extended period, on limitation.

Measured-work civil contracts performed through a contractor's own workers, with payment tied to quantities completed rather than workers or man-days, constitute works execution rather than Manpower Supply Service for reverse-charge service-tax purposes. Service-tax liability on that classification is therefore unsustainable. Where transactions are recorded in the taxpayer's books and reverse-charge tax would be creditable as CENVAT credit for dutiable manufacturing, revenue neutrality and disclosed records do not support suppression of facts. The extended limitation period is consequently unavailable, rendering a demand raised solely through that period time-barred.

Corporate liability under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act requires material linking the company itself to the alleged activity; directors' personal land transactions are not attributable solely because of their office. The High Court found that further consideration was required on whether the necessary evidentiary connection existed, issued notice, and stayed the impugned order and consequential proceedings against the petitioner pending the next hearing. No final adjudication occurred.

Foreign-exchange contraventions may be determined independently of Customs valuation and duty proceedings because the two regimes address different legal requirements. Under the statutory presumption for seized documents, electronic records supported by invoices, packing lists, banking entries and a Section 108 Customs Act statement can establish FEMA contraventions on a preponderance of probabilities where no tampering or rebuttal is shown. Liability must remain limited to documented and corroborated transactions; projections or extrapolations without independent supporting evidence cannot sustain further contraventions. Individuals responsible for a company's business may be liable for the proved contraventions.

FERA contraventions involving prohibited payments or dealings attract civil penalties once the statutory breach is established; guilty intention, personal gain, and compensation from the transaction are not prerequisites to liability. Penalty quantum is subject to limited proportionality review. Interference is warranted only where the penalty is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience. Section 50 permits penalties up to five times the value of the contravention, requiring a legally sustainable basis before a penalty is reduced as irrational or outrageous.

Interim suspension of an insolvency professional's registration remains effective pending final appeal where contested regulatory issues require full-record examination and no strong prima facie case, favourable balance of convenience, or irreparable injury is shown. Registration is the statutory basis for acting in every insolvency assignment; its suspension therefore removes eligibility to continue in other ongoing processes, not merely the assignment involving alleged misconduct. Mandatory communication of the suspension to Committees of Creditors and the Adjudicating Authority gives operational effect to that status. Such communication does not replace the Committee of Creditors' separate commercial authority to appoint a replacement resolution professional.

Parallel corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against a landholding special-purpose company are impermissible where a binding restored resolution plan, following corporate-veil lifting, treats the holding company and landholder as one economic entity and covers the project land and allottee claims. In that position, the leasehold land must be administered under the restored plan, and allottee claims do not constitute an independently due and payable debt capable of establishing a distinct default against the landholder. The threshold requirement for filing an insolvency application does not foreclose examination of subsisting debt and default at admission. A monitoring committee implementing the plan is a person aggrieved where a separate process affects the project, and binding precedent must be applied. Enforcement remedies lie within the existing insolvency process rather than a parallel process.

Secured creditors must clearly elect to realise security outside the liquidation estate within the prescribed period. A claim form showing no security details, coupled with a negative response on relinquishment, does not amount to a clear statutory election. Participation and voting in the stakeholders' consultation committee may support the conclusion that security was not validly retained, as non-relinquishing secured creditors cannot participate in that committee. Consideration of a compromise or arrangement does not suspend or extend the election period. Delayed written requests to exclude or deliver secured assets cannot revive the option, and the assets remain part of the liquidation estate.

Duplicate or multiple customs duty payments accepted in the system are treated as deposits refundable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 through the prescribed procedure. Public Notice No. 62/2012 requires the importer to provide banking and transaction records, while departmental officers must verify payment through PAO/e-PAO and ICEGATE challan inquiry. Where a system failure prevents generation of the first challan, refund cannot be made conditional on producing that unavailable record if both payments against the same bill of entry are otherwise verified and the first payment was not reversed. Eligible delayed refunds attract statutory interest under Section 27A.

Stainless-steel consignments supported by unrebutted pre-shipment inspection certificates may be classified as melting scrap rather than prime material where laboratory reports lack parameter-based chemical testing and other contrary statements are inadmissible. Physical appearance, uniform dimensions and stacking alone do not displace scrap classification, and enhancement of transaction value requires evidence that the declared value is inaccurate or that additional consideration was paid. Failure to prove misclassification, prohibited import or undervaluation removes the basis for confiscation and penalties, including director penalties absent evidence of personal involvement. Goods detained by the proper officer qualify for waiver of rent, demurrage and detention-related charges under the applicable cargo-handling regulations.

Concessional customs treatment restricted to Crude Palm Oil requires the importer to establish that the goods met that description when imported; contemporaneous loading, electronic and laboratory records may corroborate their identity. Customs classification must similarly reflect the goods' condition at importation rather than post-import mixing or dilution. A material cargo misdescription may support an extended-period duty demand, confiscation and a penalty linked to short-paid duty. Duty must be calculated under the tariff and notifications in force on the import date. A separate penalty for knowingly false documents requires distinct intentional false conduct beyond the declaration underpinning the duty demand.

Customs detention regulations prohibit recovery of rent or demurrage for goods detained or seized by Customs. Where Customs formalities conclude through reassessment and duty payment, and detention-waiver certificates cover the relevant period, importers are entitled to release and physical delivery without detention charges, container detention charges, ground rent or demurrage for that certified period. Delays attributable to Customs authorities, or disputes between shipping lines and custodians, cannot be shifted to the importer or used to withhold delivery. Liability between the concerned authorities remains subject to determination under applicable law.

The first proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act permits oral notice where the person concerned requests it. Compliance depends on whether the noticee received a genuine and effective opportunity to know and answer the allegations, rather than on a formal written show-cause notice. Where the noticee knowingly waives written notice, participates fully in adjudication, and raises no objection before the adjudicating authority, that procedural safeguard cannot ordinarily be revived after an adverse decision. The absence of formal written notice does not by itself create a jurisdictional defect warranting writ intervention in place of the statutory appellate remedy.

Customs-duty recovery imposed as a condition for release of detained gold jewellery remains enforceable where the underlying adjudication order was not challenged. A later writ petition cannot collaterally challenge the duty condition after its implementation; earlier directions for release in accordance with that order do not determine its validity. Warehouse detention charges also remain recoverable absent material showing that they were levied contrary to the governing statutory provisions. Release conditions requiring redemption fine, applicable customs duty and penalty therefore continue to bind the assessee.