Cenvat credit on input services remains admissible where service-provider invoices are issued to the head office, despite its lack of Input Service Distributor registration, if receipt and accounting of the services can be verified. Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits verification notwithstanding defects in invoice particulars. During the relevant period, no requirement mandated proportionate distribution of credit through a registered Input Service Distributor. Absence of such registration was therefore a procedural irregularity where it produced no unintended credit benefit or revenue loss, making denial of credit solely on that basis unsustainable.

Service classification turned on the dominant nature of the composite contract: excavation, earthwork, transportation, filling, dozing, compacting, dust suppression and rock handling were treated as Site Formation and Clearance Service rather than Works Contract Service. A sub-contractor supplying taxable services to a main contractor bears an independent service-tax liability, notwithstanding the main contractor's payment of tax on the contract value or availability of input credit. However, an interpretative controversy over taxation of sub-contractor services, absent cogent evidence of wilful suppression or deliberate misstatement, precludes use of the extended limitation period. Recovery was therefore barred by limitation despite the underlying tax liability.

Services performed by an Indian branch for external commercial borrowing facilities booked by its Singapore head office were not intermediary services. As the branch and head office were the same legal person, their internal activities could not constitute services between separate persons. Intermediary status also requires three parties, an identifiable main supply between two principals, and a distinct ancillary facilitation service. The Indian office undertook origination, structuring, credit assessment and monitoring on its own account, while the head office contracted for and bore the credit risk. Its remuneration was not consideration for facilitating supplies to borrowers. Rule 3 governed place of provision, rather than Rule 9(c), so no service-tax liability or consequential penalties arose.

Service tax liability on fees charged as "Standard & Labelling" and "Processing Fee" was examined under Technical Inspection and Certification Service as defined in the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal had relied on an earlier decision that was not challenged and had attained finality. Consequently, the appeal against the service tax treatment of those fees was dismissed.

Referral charges earned for promoting and marketing vehicle-loan and insurance facilities, including informing dealers and customers and facilitating customer referrals, fall within taxable Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994. Service tax therefore remains payable on that consideration. Where the entire short-paid service-tax liability is discharged before issuance of a show-cause notice, the pre-notice payment framework requires that notice not be issued. Uncertainty over the taxability of referral income explained its non-disclosure in returns; consequently, penalty for suppression under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained and is set aside.

Restoration of a company petition dismissed for want of prosecution may be granted after the thirty-day period in Rule 48(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 where sufficient cause exists. Rule 48(2) does not create an absolute bar on delayed restoration and must be read with Rule 11, which preserves inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. An unrebutted explanation that counsel missed a preponed hearing, coupled with a delay-condonation application that was not placed before the Tribunal, supported condonation. The delayed restoration application was maintainable, and the company petition was restored for decision on merits.

Disciplinary orders issued under Section 220(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are appealable before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Section 220(7), including orders passed after consideration of a show-cause notice under Section 219 that do not finally determine the consequences of alleged misconduct. Because the statutory appeal mechanism was operative when the disciplinary order was issued, it constitutes an efficacious alternative remedy. A writ challenge should therefore not be pursued at the first instance, and the challenge must proceed through the statutory appellate route.

Admission of a corporate insolvency resolution process application was not vitiated by reliance on photocopies where an undisputed information utility record established default. Section 7 permits default to be ascertained from an information utility record or other evidence furnished by the financial creditor. The corporate debtor's loan availing and pleaded default date were also established, with the default recorded as conceded before the adjudicating authority. Any challenge to the accuracy of that factual recording required prior correction of the adjudicating authority's order. The admission order was therefore sustained.

Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a broadly worded appellate remedy to every person aggrieved by an adjudicating authority's order under Part II of the Code, without limiting the category of appealable orders. Although constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not curtailed by statute, judicial discipline requires an aggrieved party to pursue the statutory appeal mechanism before invoking writ jurisdiction. Consequently, a writ petition challenging a National Company Law Tribunal order in liquidation proceedings should not be entertained where the appellate remedy under the Code is available.

Interim relief against a securities-market debarment was limited to completing an approved preferential issue of fully convertible warrants after penalty deposits. Public-shareholder approval, the company's substantial public shareholding, the capital-raising purpose, and the absence of allegations that the company dealt in securities supported this limited protection. The debarment otherwise remained effective, the underlying merits were left open, issuance time was extended by one week, and ordinary-course mutual-fund transactions were permitted.

Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 extends to material held by or under the control of a public authority. Information concerning a private body is disclosable only where the public authority may access it under another law and subject to that law's conditions and restrictions. A public authority need not collect, collate, create, or obtain material absent from its records merely to answer an information request. Directions requiring a regulator to procure information from a private exchange for disclosure were inconsistent with these limits and unsustainable.

Forfeiture of 25% of a successful e-auction bid, including a refund claim, requires examination under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The relevant issues include whether the Official Liquidator suffered loss, whether the e-auction terms distinguish between earnest money deposit and security deposit, and whether forfeiture applies to 10% EMD or 25% of the bid amount. These matters require fresh consideration, with no final merits determination on forfeiture or refund.

Customs Broker obligations under Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) require proper client authorisation, compliance advice, and reliance on reliable, independent and authentic KYC records. Authorisation letters need not invariably be obtained directly from importers where valid authority exists. A broker is not expected to independently assess the quality or valuation of imported goods subject to First Check assessment, customs examination and approved valuation. Obtaining IEC, GSTIN, PAN and supporting documents not shown to be forged satisfies KYC obligations; the regulations do not require physical verification of each importer's premises or continued operations. Subsequent unavailability of importers at declared addresses alone does not establish non-compliance.

Provisional release of seized imported goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 must balance revenue protection with the importer's ability to deal with the goods pending adjudication. Requiring a bank guarantee equivalent to approximately 80% of the goods' value was considered onerous where anti-dumping duty liability remained under investigation and no merits determination had been made. The release conditions were modified to require a bank guarantee for 30% of the differential duty and a bond covering the full value of the seized goods, with time-bound release of the goods.

Failure to fulfil an EPCG export obligation requires payment of proportionate customs duty and interest under the exemption conditions, even where imported machinery was destroyed by floods, unless a waiver is obtained from the prescribed committee or licensing authority. Installation of the machinery and destruction beyond the importer's control do not displace this fiscal liability. However, flood-related non-fulfilment does not justify confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where the machinery had been installed and was subsequently damaged beyond repair. The duty and interest demand remains enforceable, while confiscatory and penal consequences are removed.

Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe a limitation period for post-export amendment of shipping bills, provided contemporaneous documentary evidence supports the amendment. The three-month limit in Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. could not restrict conversion from the Advance Authorisation Scheme to the Duty Drawback Scheme or defeat the consequential export benefit. Notification No. 11/2022-Customs (N.T.), which introduced time limits for specified post-export conversions, could not apply retrospectively to exports completed before its issue. Shipping bills were therefore eligible for conversion and the corresponding duty drawback benefit.

Customs duty recovery for non-levy or short-levy under Section 28 cannot proceed while assessments made provisionally under Section 18 remain unfinalised. Export bonds recording an undertaking to pay finally assessed duty indicate provisional assessment, and finalisation is required under the prescribed procedure before recovery action. Redemption fine under Section 125 is not sustainable where goods exported under Section 18 bonds were neither seized nor provisionally released and are unavailable for confiscation. Consequently, demands issued before finalisation, along with redemption fine and penalties linked to unavailable exported goods, lack legal basis.

Transferee importers using DFIA licences obtained through fabricated exports remain liable for customs duty and penalty where the licences are void from inception. Bona fide purchaser status is not established merely by acquiring licences through intermediaries or making payment through banking channels. Required due diligence includes independently verifying the licences, underlying export transactions, issuing exporter and relevant customs release documentation. Reliance solely on brokers is insufficient. On materially identical fraud facts, the applicable coordinate-bench approach requires verification of licence authenticity; failure to do so leaves the transferee importer liable for duty and penal consequences.

Excess drawback arising from incorrect self-assessment and misclassification of exported goods must first be determined through reassessment under the Customs Act or, where applicable, the provisional-assessment mechanism. Section 75A(2) permits recovery only after the excess amount has been crystallised through the prescribed assessment process. Direct recovery proceedings under Section 75A(2), without reassessment or determination of liability under the relevant assessment provisions, are therefore impermissible and unsustainable.

Customs broker licensing proceedings cannot be set aside for alleged inquiry delay where the inquiry report followed the show-cause notice within the prescribed period and no factual basis for prejudice exists. Separate officers performed the investigation and inquiry functions, so the alleged breach of natural justice lacked factual foundation. As the alleged breaches of customs broker obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 had not been examined on their merits, the licensing order could not be annulled on those preliminary grounds; the alleged regulatory violations require merits adjudication.