Classification and taxability of services are treated as questions directly and proximately related to the rate of duty. Section 35G(1) excludes High Court jurisdiction over Tribunal orders determining such matters, while Section 35L(2) declaratorily includes taxability and excisability within questions relating to the rate of duty. Where proposed questions concern classification and taxability of secondment arrangements, the appeal lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L rather than before the High Court under Section 35G(1).

Service tax collected on the supply and operation of floating rigs under Mining Service, before Supply of Tangible Goods Service became taxable, lacked legal authority where the activity was incorrectly classified. A recipient that bore the tax incidence may seek refund even if the service provider did not separately challenge the assessment. Tax paid through a mistake of law is not subject to the ordinary one-year refund limitation where no lawful levy applied, consistent with Article 265. Refund is not barred by unjust enrichment when evidence establishes that the recipient bore the burden and did not pass it on further. Appellate authorities and the Tribunal may rectify the classification error and grant refund on established facts.

Default bail is not triggered merely because a supplementary complaint filed within the prescribed period is returned for procedural compliance. A precedent concerning incomplete charge-sheets filed to defeat default-bail rights remains distinguishable where the complaint was timely filed. Regular bail in a money-laundering offence requires satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Prima facie involvement with proceeds of crime, alleged interference with investigation, and dealings concerning attached properties may prevent satisfaction of those conditions.

Mitigating factors may justify reducing a monetary penalty below a statutory minimum where the specific penal provision does not override the mandatory consideration of such factors. The majority view treated the relevant mitigation provision as permitting a calibrated penalty based on the circumstances, while the dissent considered the statutory minimum irreducible. Penalty orders were set aside against two appellants because effective service of notice and knowledge of the proceedings were not established, breaching natural justice. Liability was sustained against another appellant because properly served notices, hearing opportunities and disclosed trade material established matched reversal trades that created artificial volume in an illiquid options contract.

Pre-emptive share-transfer restrictions in a private company's Articles of Association required a transferring shareholder to notify the Board, which had to offer the shares to existing members at an agreed or auditor-certified fair value. Transfers by a Trust and individual shareholders to outsiders did not fall within the stated exceptions and bypassed notice, Board agency, member offer and valuation requirements. The restrictions applied equally to Trust-held and individually held shares, while objections and procedural non-compliance ruled out waiver or acquiescence. The transfers were void; the company must reverse them, rectify its registers and related records, and any resale must follow the prescribed pre-emptive process. Directors appointed solely through the cancelled transfers cease to hold office unless independently qualified.

Leave to appeal is not required where appellants were applicants before the writ court and the challenged order adjudicated their own intervention applications; stranger-to-order principles do not apply. Intervention in a finally disposed writ petition requires a demonstrated subsisting right affected by the writ order. Former directors relying only on apprehensions arising from collateral disputes were neither necessary nor proper parties. Final disposal renders the writ court functus officio, preventing intervention in concluded proceedings; consequently, recall need not be considered on merits. Rejection of the intervention applications stands, without prejudice to any independent remedy before the appropriate forum.

Regulation 16 permits immediate preventive suspension of a Customs Broker licence only where an inquiry is pending or contemplated and urgent intervention is recorded as necessary. Because suspension may be imposed without a prior hearing, Regulation 16(2) requires a post-decisional hearing within fifteen days; this mandatory safeguard cannot be extended administratively. Where the licensing authority deferred the hearing beyond that period and the delay was not attributable to the Customs Broker, continuation of suspension becomes unsustainable. The suspension must therefore be revoked with immediate effect.

Regulation 11(2) permits immediate suspension of a Customs Cargo Service Provider approval only as an exceptional preventive measure where an urgent and continuing risk objectively justifies action without awaiting inquiry. It is distinct from suspension or revocation under Regulation 11(1), which requires the procedural safeguards in Regulation 12. Continuing preventive suspension requires a demonstrated subsisting necessity, timely verification of alleged deficiencies, and consideration of proportionate alternatives. Where no inquiry commenced, corrective measures remained unverified, supervised cargo operations continued without incident, and enhanced conditions could address revenue and security concerns, indefinite suspension was unsustainable. Approval required restoration, without limiting lawful proceedings under Regulation 11(1).

Tariff classification of automotive electronic control units depends on their specific functional characteristics rather than a generic description as motor-vehicle parts. Body Control Modules and Integrated Body Units that continuously monitor inputs, compare them with desired parameters, and issue corrective signals are treated as electronic automatic regulators under tariff item 9032 8910. A prior coordinate-bench classification of materially identical goods should be followed unless displaced by a superior decision. Revenue must establish the functional basis for any alternative classification; unsupported classification of a Tyre Pressure Monitoring System as a motor-vehicle part cannot displace classification under tariff item 9032 8910. The concessional classification consequently applies to the imported goods.

Under the DFIA Scheme, Vital Wheat Gluten falls within the permitted input description of wheat flour where binding decisions recognising that position remain unstayed and unset aside. Section 110 of the Customs Act permits seizure only when the proper officer has legally sustainable reason to believe that goods are liable to confiscation. A suspended Public Notice cannot support seizure, and the applicable departmental circular did not require technical correlation for the relevant input. Commercial or tariff distinctions between wheat flour and wheat gluten do not displace the settled DFIA input description. Vital Wheat Gluten is therefore eligible for DFIA benefit, and seizure lacks jurisdiction in the absence of a sustainable basis for confiscation.

Provisional release under section 110A of the Customs Act cannot be refused solely because investigation into alleged misdeclaration, import-policy violation, tariff classification, or differential duty remains pending. The applicable circular may supplement, but cannot displace, the statutory right to seek release. Questions concerning import authorisation coverage, declaration accuracy, classification and duty liability remain for adjudication. Revenue interests may be protected through appropriate conditions; the goods must therefore be released on payment of duty at 10% after credit for duty already paid and execution of a personal bond for the remaining differential duty, without prejudice to investigation and adjudication.

Prospective operation of an amended customs exemption notification prevents its application to imports covered by a bill of lading issued before the amendment commenced, absent express retrospective effect. A post-import amendment therefore cannot be used to refuse consideration of provisional release of similar imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The request must be considered under the applicable pre-amendment position, with lawful conditions imposed for release upon compliance, while preserving independent merits adjudication.

Prospective operation of an amendment to an exemption notification prevents its use against imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment's commencement, absent an express retrospective provision. Provisional release of the imported goods must therefore be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, applying the established approach for similar goods where no distinguishing feature exists. The amendment cannot justify refusal to consider the importer's request for provisional release.

Steamer agents lodging and verifying an Import General Manifest act for the person in charge of the conveyance and may incur liability for manifested cargo not unloaded or for deficiencies not satisfactorily explained. Sections 2(31), 30, 31, 116 and 148 of the Customs Act treat an accepted cargo-handling agent as subject to statutory obligations concerning accurate cargo declarations. A substantial mismatch between manifested quantities and goods found in containers, without satisfactory explanation, can attract penalty under Section 116. Bill-of-lading clauses stating that cargo particulars were supplied by shippers and not checked by carriers do not displace these statutory duties.

Transfer-pricing benchmarking for imported finished SIM cards must reflect the assessee's actual reseller/distributor profile. Electrical embossing of customer logos or designs does not convert the distributor into a manufacturer, service provider, or risk-bearing group entrepreneur. Service, system-integration, software and manufacturing companies with research and development activities, intangibles, plants, technology or royalty arrangements are functionally unsuitable comparables and must be excluded. Comparable companies with an unchanged business profile and available annual reports should be retained. Where comparables are rejected solely for unavailable database data, financial information should be obtained through internal or statutory information-gathering mechanisms before a reasoned exclusion. The arm's length price requires fresh computation using functionally comparable distributors.

Transfer-pricing benchmarking of barite exports under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires functionally comparable trading entities and reliable operating-margin data. A company cannot be treated as persistently loss-making if it earned profit in one of the three relevant financial years, making Ashok Alcochem Ltd. eligible for inclusion. Entities predominantly engaged in processing or manufacturing, or lacking segmental information to isolate trading activity, are unsuitable comparables; HD Micrones Ltd., Shivom Minerals Ltd., Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. and Naga Ltd. are therefore excluded. The remaining comparable margins require verification against annual reports before recomputing the arm's length price.

For section 80IA purposes, captive electricity transferred from an eligible unit to a non-eligible unit may be valued at the industrial-consumer tariff charged by the distribution company, as this represents an appropriate comparable uncontrolled price for the specified domestic transaction. Short-term exchange rates are materially dissimilar to continuous captive supply and do not replace this benchmark. Steam is a separately valuable utility with ascertainable production cost and cannot be valued at nil merely as a by-product. Its inter-unit transfer must be valued at production cost. These valuations determine eligible-unit profits and support the corresponding section 80IA deduction.

Mistaken exercise of the concessional regime option through Form No. 10-IF under section 115BAD may permit assessment under the old regime and a section 80P deduction claim. The option ordinarily requires computation of total income without Chapter VI-A deductions, including section 80P. Where the filing was mistaken, income may be recomputed as if Form No. 10-IF had not been filed, provided verification confirms that the co-operative society had not opted for the concessional regime in any earlier year.

Search assessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased assessee are invalid where the death occurred before the second-round proceedings and the legal heir was not brought on record. Issuing notices and passing an assessment order against a non-existent person cannot sustain a valid assessment, even where the legal heir subsequently pursues appellate remedies. The assessment is consequently void ab initio.

Section 110A of the Customs Act governs provisional release of seized imported goods through statutory discretion that executive circulars may supplement but cannot override or replace. Pending investigation into alleged misdeclaration, import-policy violations, and tariff classification does not by itself require continued detention, as those matters remain for adjudication. Revenue interests may be protected through conditions such as payment of duty at the departmental rate and execution of a personal bond for the remaining differential duty. Provisional release may therefore be granted without prejudicing investigation, adjudication, classification, import-policy compliance, or final duty liability.