Letter-of-credit charges recovered by a trader from high-seas-sale buyers formed part of the composite consideration for imported goods under a principal-to-principal sale arrangement. Issuance of the letter of credit, including the payment guarantee, was performed by the bank rather than the trader, so no service-provider and service-recipient relationship existed between the trader and buyer for banking or financial services. Reimbursement alone did not constitute consideration for a service. Following introduction of the negative-list regime, the transaction remained a transfer of title in goods, and inseverable pre-import letter-of-credit costs could not be separated for service-tax levy. No service tax was payable on those charges.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely because the recipient address on input-service invoices differs from the address in its ST-2 registration certificate where the invoices otherwise contain the particulars required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. An address retained in the service provider's accounting system is a technical discrepancy and does not, by itself, determine substantive credit eligibility. Denial without considering the assessee's explanation, objections, and entitlement on merits is unsustainable. The credit denial and consequential demand, interest, and penalty were set aside, with fresh adjudication required after notice and hearing.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Alleged undervalued asset sales through revoked board resolutions, diversion and concealment of unaccounted proceeds, and use of court-permitted liquidation to generate unrecorded cash were treated as potential money-laundering conduct rather than merely corporate or civil irregularities. Digital material and an unresolved money trail did not satisfy the statutory conditions. Alleged defects in electronic evidence, age, health, detention period and parity did not displace concerns regarding the distinct role, absconding co-accused, ongoing investigation, witness intimidation and evidence manipulation; regular bail was refused.

Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act applies only when both the court trying the scheduled offence and the designated Special Court have taken cognizance and are different courts. Cognizance by the Special Court is an express precondition; a pre-cognizance notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not satisfy it. Absence of sanction required to prosecute a former public servant also prevents cognizance. Committal remains discretionary and should prevent delay or inconsistent findings, not displace a substantially concluded scheduled-offence trial and prejudice the accused's right to speedy trial. The committal request was therefore premature and refused.

Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was raised in relation to extinguishment of a corporate debtor's criminal liability, the effect of a moratorium under Section 14 on criminal liability, and suspension of sentence where a resolution plan had not been approved. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the special leave petition. No further reasoning or legal principle on the scope of Section 32A or Section 14 is provided.

Cognizance for offences under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 requires a prescribed written complaint before the competent court and cannot be taken on a police report, although police investigation material may support an authorised complaint. Proceedings based on the police report were therefore quashed for those offences. Criminal breach of trust and cheating require allegations of entrustment or dominion, dishonest misappropriation, wrongful gain or loss, and dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property. As these foundational elements were absent, the relevant IPC allegations were also quashed, while investigation into remaining offences could continue.

Former directors cannot maintain individual appeals against orders in company winding-up proceedings concerning creditors' and buyers' claims where their locus standi has already been conclusively determined between the same parties on identical facts. The prior final determination precludes reconsideration of entitlement to pursue the appeal. Repeated obstructive conduct affecting the crystallised rights of bona fide buyers may also justify costs. The former director therefore lacked standing to challenge the winding-up orders in an individual capacity.

Rule 7 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 2017 permits extension beyond the initial three-month period for filing drawback Brand Rate or Special Brand Rate applications, subject to the prescribed maximum period. Where an exporter seeks extension within that extendable period, pays the required fee, and explains delay caused by receipt, verification, and certification of export documents, delay should be condoned liberally. The drawback scheme's beneficial export-incentive and trade-facilitation purpose supports a non-technical exercise of the extension power. The applications must then be considered on merits, with fixation of the applicable rate and consequential relief according to law.

Penalty for alleged involvement in smuggling of mis-declared cigarettes cannot rest solely on an investigating witness's earlier statement when cross-examination denies the respondent's role. The IEC holder stated during cross-examination that the respondent had no role in the imports, could not establish the respondent's ownership of the goods, and had a friendly relationship with the respondent. As the cross-examination testimony was admissible and no corroborative material established participation in smuggling, the earlier statement did not support penalties. The penalties were therefore dropped.

Personal penalties for alleged misdeclaration of the MRP/RSP of imported goods cannot survive where the underlying duty demand and penalties against the main noticee and other co-noticees have been set aside or dropped. Once the foundational adjudication no longer subsists, there is no basis to sustain consequential personal penalties. The penalties imposed on the appellants were therefore dropped.

Transaction value for imported Main PCB Boards may be rejected where the declared importer is merely a conduit, the declared price is not the sole consideration, and reliable contemporaneous imports establish a comparable value. Deliberate under-declaration, fabricated billing and diversion of goods to the actual domestic beneficiary support recovery of differential duty and interest under the extended period. Voluntary statements recorded under statutory summons powers, together with Bills of Entry and corroborative documents, may be relied upon without cross-examination where no investigative-officer statement is used. Knowing participation by the importer, representative, overseas supplier-controller and domestic beneficiary may justify confiscation consequences and penalties for undervaluation and abetment.

Penalties for abetment of gold smuggling and confiscation of a vehicle require evidence that the driver or hotel operators knew of or participated in the passengers' smuggling activity. Recovery of gold solely from passengers does not establish the driver's involvement merely because he transported them. Similarly, hotel operators cannot be connected to smuggling without evidence of their knowledge or involvement in the activity of persons from whom gold was recovered. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the appellants to the smuggling, the penalties and vehicle confiscation were unsustainable.

Exclusion from customs exemption for imported flavour compounds under CTH 3302.10 applies only when the goods are established as compound alcoholic preparations of the prescribed alcoholic strength and of a kind used in beverage manufacture. Supply to a tobacco-products manufacturer, without conclusive evidence of beverage use or suitability, does not establish the exclusion. Reliance on an earlier test report is insufficient where no test report was shown for the imported consignment. The flavour compounds were therefore not proved to fall within the excluded category under Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and qualified for exemption.

Tribunal jurisdiction under the baggage exclusion depends on whether the impugned order actually concerns goods imported or exported as baggage. A gold ornament recovered from an arriving passenger's wrist was not automatically baggage merely because the passenger arrived from abroad or was intercepted at an international airport. As its status as a personal ornament, declarability and alleged concealment remained disputed, the jurisdictional fact for excluding Tribunal review was not conclusively established. Authorities concerning goods admittedly recovered from baggage or luggage were distinguishable. The preliminary jurisdictional objection was rejected, and the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal.

Customs transaction value may be rejected under Rule 12 where reliable, corroborated evidence, including contemporaneous invoices and overseas verification, creates reasonable doubt about the declared value. Refundable overseas VAT is excluded from assessable value because it is not part of the price paid or payable for export. Temporary foreign registration, without proof of actual use, does not make a vehicle used or defeat the available new-vehicle exemption. Deliberate value misdeclaration supports confiscability, but redemption fine is impermissible once cleared goods are unavailable for confiscation. Duty, interest and the duty-linked penalty require recalculation after granting the exemption and excluding refundable VAT; a separate intermediary penalty remains sustainable.

Extended limitation for customs-duty recovery applies where an importer deliberately misclassifies optical network equipment and claims ineligible exemption benefits. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods across imports and ports, continued reliance on the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and product-approval records describing the goods as GPON ONT rather than subscriber-end equipment demonstrate lack of due diligence and intent to evade duty. Failure to seek provisional assessment despite classification ambiguity further supports invocation of the extended period. The customs-duty demand and related findings are sustained.

Disciplinary proceedings against a customs broker require show cause notices that clearly identify the alleged advisory or due-diligence breach and the manner of contravention. Notices that merely reproduce material from import misclassification and undervaluation proceedings, without connecting it to the broker's obligations, deny a meaningful opportunity to respond. Adjudication cannot supply missing particulars or travel beyond the allegations in the notice. Where such materially identical notices had already been invalidated and that invalidation affirmed by the High Court, the notices remain unsustainable. Consequently, licence revocation, security-deposit forfeiture and penalty actions based on the vague notices were set aside.

Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) applies to interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank where that bank is registered as a co-operative society under the applicable co-operative societies law. Consistent treatment was warranted because the same issue had been decided favourably for a later assessment year following jurisdictional High Court rulings, and no distinguishing facts or fresh material existed for the assessment years concerned. The interest income therefore qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).

Recorded reasons for reopening must be furnished when specifically requested, enabling the assessee to object to reassessment and requiring disposal of those objections by a speaking order. Non-supply of the reasons denies that opportunity, breaches natural justice, and cannot be cured by assuming compliance merely because reasons were recorded. The resulting reassessment notice and consequential reassessment order lack valid jurisdiction, are void from inception, and must be quashed.

Section 68 requires an assessee to establish the creditor's identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the credit transaction. Corporate status, PAN and address may establish identity, but do not by themselves prove capacity to advance funds. Repayment within the same year also does not establish genuineness where the business purpose for the advance is not demonstrated and funds are placed in short-term deposits before repayment with a mark-up. Explanations concerning unavailable records or a director's circumstances do not replace evidence of the creditor's capacity, transaction purpose and genuineness. On these facts, the related-party advance remained unexplained and the addition was restored.