Reimbursements received by a distributor for sales programmes, promotions and training undertaken for the principal, including reimbursements through SIM cards, recharge coupons and e-recharge vouchers, did not form part of taxable value for service tax. Excluding those expenses from receipts reflected in Form 26AS left the distributor's remaining receipts below the prescribed threshold limit. Consequently, no service tax liability or penalty arose.

Construction of a residential group-housing project involving service performance and transfer or deemed transfer of property in materials constitutes a composite works contract, not service simpliciter. Use of goods, VAT payment and returns, and VAT assessment establish the composite character. Revenue bears the burden of showing that the activity falls outside Works Contract Service. From 1 July 2010, such contracts are specifically taxable as Works Contract Service; Construction of Complex Service does not supersede that classification merely because the contract concerns a residential complex. The service-tax demand was therefore dropped in favour of the assessee.

Service tax paid under a mistake of law was treated as outside the limitation period applicable to refund claims under Section 11B where entitlement on merits had been accepted; refund for the earlier period was therefore available. From 1 October 2014, facilitation of goods supply fell within intermediary services, for which the place of provision was the service provider's location under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. Facilitation services supplied to overseas clients consequently did not qualify for refund for the subsequent period. Omission to specifically cite the amended definition in the show-cause notice did not invalidate proceedings where the allegations were clear.

Where the entire service-tax demand in a show-cause notice is dropped after recognising liabilities already determined and discharged, no basis remains for interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 or for a penalty for delayed filing of service-tax returns. Interest and penalty cannot survive independently when no underlying tax liability remains under the notice. The interest demand and delayed-return-filing penalty were therefore unsustainable and set aside.

Service tax paid through the established book-adjustment mechanism is treated as valid payment for the relevant period, preventing a repeat demand. CBIC instructions recognise that legacy book entries may be impracticable to reverse after Government accounts are finalised and prescribe that duty already paid through book adjustment should not be demanded again. Records of service-tax transfer obtained from the Controller General of Accounts provide the evidentiary basis for establishing payment through this mechanism.

Lawfully availed and undisputed CENVAT credit may be utilised under Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to discharge service-tax liability relating to an earlier period, even where the credit accrued subsequently. The timing of credit accrual does not by itself invalidate its use against a prior-period tax liability where the credit is otherwise admissible. A contrary approach treating such utilisation as invalid is unsustainable.

Post-negative-list classification of manufacturing job work as business auxiliary service is unsustainable where plastic granules are converted into distinct marketable PET bottles and jars. The process constitutes manufacture under the Central Excise Act and falls within the manufacture-related negative-list exclusion from service tax. A service-tax exemption notification applicable to taxable services does not govern the manufacturing activity, while the area-based excise exemption remains relevant. Extended limitation requires evidence of intent to evade tax; without such evidence, it cannot validate a demand.

Freight rebates received from C&F agents for liaisoning between exporters and agents constitute consideration for a taxable service where they are not shown to reimburse expenses or to have been passed on to exporters. Where Service Tax was not separately recovered from clients, taxable receipts require cum-duty valuation. Extended limitation requires proof of a positive act of wilful misdeclaration or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; non-registration, non-filing of returns, or audit-detected non-payment alone do not suffice. Service Tax liability is therefore confined to the normal limitation period, with taxable value recalculated on a cum-duty basis and penalty restricted.

The proviso to Section 85(3A) permits an appeal filed within the further one-month condonable period on sufficient cause and does not expressly require a separate condonation application. For a one-day delay where the appellant has been heard, an explanation may be sought rather than treating the omission as a technical bar. Extended service-tax limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade. Non-payment, non-registration, or non-filing of returns alone does not establish that intent, especially where income-tax-return data was available to Revenue. A demand cannot extend beyond the statutory maximum limitation period.

Refund claims under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 had to be filed within six months from presidential assent to the Finance Bill. As assent was received on 14 May 2016, the filing period expired on 14 November 2016. The six-month limitation was treated as mandatory, and a claim filed on 14 February 2017 was time-barred and liable to rejection. A contrary High Court view was not followed because it had not considered the applicable Supreme Court decision.

Foreign-exchange adjudication proceedings brought by Article 226 writ petitions are allocated to Group IV, which covers adjudication proceedings and miscellaneous matters concerning revenue and tax laws, rather than the residuary Group IX. Rules 8A and 8B require writ petitions to be placed within the prescribed roster classification. The foreign-exchange regulatory framework, its subject matter, and cause-list treatment of foreign exchange as a revenue subject support Group IV allocation.

Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 excludes civil-court jurisdiction only for matters the National Company Law Tribunal is empowered to determine. The Tribunal's jurisdiction over oppression, mismanagement, company affairs and shareholders' rights under Sections 241 and 242 does not extend to declaring a registered sale deed void or non-binding on a company. Civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 continues unless expressly or necessarily impliedly excluded. Accordingly, a Commercial Court may adjudicate declaratory relief challenging a registered sale deed.

Foreign currency concealed for export, acquired through unauthorised channels, and unsupported by evidence of lawful acquisition, Reserve Bank permission, or Customs declaration is liable to confiscation for contravening foreign-exchange controls. Confiscability does not automatically require absolute confiscation: discretion to permit redemption must account for the nature of the breach, the value involved, and proportionality. Penalty liability for attempted unauthorised export remains applicable, but penalties may be moderated where those involved acted as carriers and their ownership or ultimate beneficiary status is not established. Redemption and penalty consequences should reflect the proven degree of participation.

Written acceptance of reassessment under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 dispenses only with a speaking order and does not waive an importer's statutory right to challenge reassessment or value enhancement. Rejection of declared transaction value under section 14 and rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules requires reasonable doubt as to its truth or accuracy, communicated before applying the sequential valuation rules. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data alone cannot justify enhancement without independent, cogent and verifiable material. An acceptance letter lacking particulars of comparable imports does not establish compliance with the valuation framework.

An importer's written acceptance of an enhanced assessable value under Section 17(5) removes the requirement for a speaking order but does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment. Declared transaction value may be rejected under Section 14 and Rule 12(2) only after reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy is formed and communicated. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data, without disclosed supporting material, cogent corroboration, and compliance with sequential valuation rules, cannot alone support enhancement. A reassessment made without these mandatory valuation safeguards is unsustainable.

Customs prosecution for outright smuggling involving precious metals is subject to the revised Rs. 50 lakh monetary threshold introduced by the 16 August 2022 circular, which modified the earlier Rs. 20 lakh threshold while retaining other terms. Where the goods' value falls below the revised threshold, the request for discontinuance must be assessed under that limit. The retained withdrawal provision permits judicial consideration of whether an already-filed complaint should continue; prior prosecution sanction does not itself bar that consideration.

Customs confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act require an established contravention and cannot rest on assumptions about an export destination. Export records, phytosanitary certificates, buyer details and remittance records supported the declared Iranian destination; no alteration of certificates or non-genuine remittances was established. Once a Let Export Order is issued, title to export goods passes to the foreign buyer. Post-export receipt-of-proceeds concerns under foreign-exchange or foreign-trade regimes require action by authorities empowered under those enactments and, absent an independent Customs Act contravention, do not justify Customs confiscation or penalties.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires that a material part of the cause of action arise within the court's territorial limits. Seizure, detention and provisional-release proceedings concerning imported goods at ICD Dadri arose under the Customs Commissioner at Noida, not Delhi. Connections with Delhi-based authorities, classification issues, a Chartered Engineer's certificate and CBIC policy did not create a cause of action in Delhi. Forum conveniens cannot cure an absence of territorial jurisdiction because it applies only where more than one competent forum exists. Challenges to classification and release must therefore be pursued before the appropriate forum.

Disposal of seized gold without statutory prior notice to its owner under Section 150(1) makes the applicable valuation, if confiscation proceedings ultimately favour the owner, the fair market value on the date release is directed rather than the historical sale proceeds. A pending departmental appeal against non-confiscation leaves abatement and confiscation merits for appellate determination. Immediate disbursement of the gold's value against bank guarantees is not available while that appeal remains unresolved; expedited appellate determination and subsequent conditional payment govern release.

Interim protection against suspension of operations was considered warranted pending a contemplated inquiry because a strong prima facie case for relief existed. The suspension appeared prima facie unjustified, and the prescribed timeline under Regulation 11(3) appeared not to have been followed. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, with a stay on the suspension order and consequential public notice pending inquiry. The pending inquiry was directed to proceed without influence from the impugned appellate order.