Inordinate delay in adjudication: unexplained delays undermine natural justice and invalidate further administrative steps.
The challenge contested whether inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication violated the principles of natural justice, causing serious prejudice by impairing the petitioner's ability to defend. The court found the respondents' explanations-frequent changes in adjudicating officers and accommodation of co-noticees-insufficient, applied precedent that excessive unexplained delay vitiates proceedings, and emphasized the duty of authorities to conduct timely adjudication or supply adequate justification for delay.

Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.

Export of service: services benefiting a foreign recipient's overseas business can qualify as exports, affecting service tax liability.
Whether commissions earned by an Indian sub agent for procuring orders for a foreign principal qualify as export of service under the Export of Service Rules 2005 depends on the destination based consumption tax concept: the place where benefit accrues and the location of the service recipient determine export character, and services benefiting a foreign recipient's overseas business that meet the Rules' conditions are treated as exports and outside domestic service tax.

Delay in tax adjudication undermines statutory timeframe and can violate principles of natural justice, affecting taxpayers' rights.
Inordinate delay in adjudicating a service tax show cause notice raised whether such delay contravened the statutory timeframe under Section 73 and violated principles of natural justice; the delay of about a decade, despite an early response by the taxpayer, was characterised as inordinate and prejudicial, inconsistent with the statutory aim of prompt determination and established precedents requiring proceedings to conclude within a reasonable period.

Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.

Extended limitation period: requires proof of fraud or wilful suppression; mere self-assessment errors are insufficient.
The tribunal held that invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT credit requires affirmative grounds such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts; mere incorrect self-assessment, audit disagreement, or discovery during audit does not establish the necessary intent to evade, and therefore demands beyond the normal limitation period (except conceded amounts) could not be sustained.

Cenvat credit validity vs procedural lapses: extended limitation requires evidence of fraud or suppression to apply.
Whether a PSU could claim CENVAT credit through its Head Office functioning as an Input Service Distributor despite documentation lapses, and whether the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation were examined. The focus is on reconciling substantive receipt of services with procedural compliance, and on the requisite showing of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to justify extending limitation beyond the normal period; mere delay without such evidence does not suffice.

Principles of natural justice require hearing before rejecting an SVLDRS declaration, prompting fresh reconsideration with a speaking order.
An administrative rejection of an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for alleged ineligibility was found to have failed procedural fairness by denying notice and hearing. The court required the Designated Committee to reconsider the declaration after affording the applicant a hearing with prior intimation and to issue a reasoned speaking order reflecting the scheme's remedial purpose.

Right to be heard: foreclosure of the right to reply violates natural justice, requiring fresh adjudication with hearing.
Foreclosure of the noticee's opportunity to respond to a notice breaches the right to be heard and principles of natural justice. Where the adjudicating authority has foreclosed the reply, the matter should be returned to the original authority for fresh adjudication after the noticee is given opportunity to reply and to present factual and legal submissions, and after the authority issues notice of intent and completes adjudication with procedural fairness.

Classification of floating vessels as immovable property may exclude their sale from GST law taxation.
The tribunal held that ships and vessels afloat are not 'goods' but are akin to immovable property because they cannot be severed from the waters; ships are goods only before launch, during breaking up, or when specifically the subject of a sale. As immovable property lies outside the GST domain under the constitutional allocation, this classification raises the question whether GST would apply to sale or supply of floating vessels-a point pending higher judicial scrutiny.

Adjustment of excess service tax permitted as alternative to refund under liberal interpretation of procedural rules.
A liberal reading of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 permits adjustment of excess service tax paid against future liabilities when facts show an excess payment, rather than restricting the assessee solely to a refund claim, consistent with constitutional limits on taxation and the Revenue's concession of excess payment.

Service elements in works contracts taxable when classifiable under construction or erection services, not limited to a new label.
Service elements within a composite works contract that correspond in nature to Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, Construction of Complex Service or Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service are taxable under those service heads; such service elements need not be classified exclusively under the subsequently inserted sub clause, and levy under the existing defined service categories is proper based on the substantive character of the activities.