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.

Swachh Bharat Cess applicability: applies to all taxable services except services fully exempt or not leviable to service tax.
Swachh Bharat Cess applies to all taxable services except those that are fully exempt under a statutory notification or are otherwise not leviable to service tax; the cess was imposed by government authority to cover the taxable service base while preserving existing exemptions and non leviability rules.

Cenvat credit reversal does not require separate reversal of Swachh Bharat Cess under the applicable rule per FAQ.
The circular states that Swachh Bharat Cess is not integrated into the Cenvat credit chain; the reversal under Rule 6 requires payment based on the value of exempted services, and therefore a separate reversal of Swachh Bharat Cess is not required when reversing credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Point of taxation determines Swachh Bharat Cess liability; payment date triggers reverse charge cess on taxable service.
Point of taxation governs SBC liability for reverse-charge services: the date of payment is the point of taxation and SBC is payable on the value of the taxable service at the prescribed rate when consideration is paid to the service provider.

Swachh Bharat Cess option for services under specified service-tax rule; SBC computed by prescribed formula and fixed for financial year.
Persons liable to pay service tax under the sub rules of rule 6 may elect to discharge Swachh Bharat Cess by applying a prescribed computation to their Service Tax liability; once exercised the election must be applied uniformly to such services and cannot be changed during the financial year.

Swachh Bharat Cess on restaurant services is calculated on the value determined under Service Tax valuation rules, creating a combined levy.
Swachh Bharat Cess on restaurant services is payable on the taxable value determined under the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006; for restaurants, eating joints or messes with any air-conditioning or central heating, the cess and service tax are each applied to the portion of the total charge treated as taxable under those rules, and the combined levy is the sum of the service tax rate and the cess rate applied to that taxable portion.

Service tax calculation for services under Rule 2A/2B/2C: apply combined service tax and SBC to the rule determined value.
Service tax and Swachh Bharat Cess on services governed by Rule 2A, 2B or 2C are computed by multiplying the combined service tax plus SBC rate by the value determined under the relevant rule. For works contract services, applying the combined rate to the rule specified taxable fraction of the contract value produces the operative tax liability; the same approach applies to restaurant and outdoor catering services.

Point of taxation for Swachh Bharat Cess: levy applies where service, invoice and payment occur on or after commencement date.
Because SBC is a new levy on taxable services not in the Negative List or wholly exempt, the Point of Taxation Rules determine liability. SBC does not arise where payment and invoice are issued before the levy's commencement or where payment precedes commencement but invoice is issued within the short prescribed period. SBC is chargeable where service provision, invoice issuance and payment occur on or after the commencement date; it also applies if service is provided on or after commencement but payment was received earlier and invoice is not issued within the short post-commencement period.

Cenvat credit of Swachh Bharat Cess disallowed; SBC not in Cenvat credit chain and not payable using credits.
Cenvat credit for the Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) is not available because SBC is not integrated into the Cenvat credit chain; consequently SBC cannot be claimed as input credit nor paid using credits of any other duty or tax.

Swachh Bharat Cess calculation: SBC applies same abatement percentage as service tax, on combined taxable rate.
Swachh Bharat Cess is to be levied on the same abatement percentage that applies to service tax; the notification prescribing abatement for service tax applies equally to SBC, so the combined rate (service tax plus SBC) is applied to the abated value to determine the effective levy.