Buyer-funded tooling constitutes additional consideration only to the extent of the proportionate amortised value attributable to finished goods. Assessable value should reflect the tool's expected life, production capability and quantity of goods manufactured, rather than the entire tooling advance upon receipt. Reliable tooling, production, invoice and payment records may substantiate the amortisation method; a Cost Accountant's certificate is not an indispensable statutory requirement. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression, misstatement or withholding of material information with intent to evade duty. Prior disclosure during audit, bona fide valuation methodology, revenue neutrality and duty payment on amortised cost preclude extended limitation, consequential interest and penalty.

Transaction value under a buyback arrangement cannot serve as assessable value where batteries are supplied below manufacturing cost, co-packed into torches sold exclusively back to the supplier, and the price is neither arm's length nor the sole consideration; cost-based valuation was therefore sustained. Extended limitation requires suppression or an equivalent statutory ground. Registration, prescribed returns and Revenue knowledge of the agreements precluded extended limitation, rendering that demand time-barred, although demands within the normal limitation period and interest remained enforceable. Penalties based on suppression failed, and the CENVAT-credit penalty provision was inapplicable because no wrongful credit availment or utilisation was alleged or invoked.

Excise duty paid during an intervening disputed period may be treated as paid under protest under Rule 233B where formal protest records are unavailable but accepted protests exist immediately before and after that period. Continuous challenge to duty liability, particularly where the underlying contention that the activity did not constitute manufacture has attained finality, supports that treatment. Payment under protest excludes the limitation bar otherwise applicable to the refund claim, preserving entitlement to refund.

Plastic lamination of cotton, jute or man-made fabrics produces a commercially distinct article and constitutes manufacture. Job-work exemption depends on the principal manufacturer's undertaking or declaration that processed goods will be used for dutiable final products or export; incidental inputs used by the job worker do not negate job work, but unsupported clearances remain dutiable. Laminated HDPE fabrics are not excluded as plastic strips and qualify for small-scale industry exemption. Rule 10A excludes notional profit from job-work valuation, while own-account sale prices are cum-duty values. Extended limitation applies where required undertakings were missing for some clearances. Personal penalty fails absent an order of confiscation. Duty requires redetermination accordingly.

Timely revised pre-GST returns can establish entitlement to differential Cenvat credit even where the credit was not carried forward through TRAN-1. Under the CGST transitional provisions, admissible credit disclosed in a return revised within the permitted period may be refunded in cash, subject to the applicable unjust-enrichment requirements. Eligible pre-GST credit refund claims are to be processed under the existing law, and inability to amend a TRAN-1 declaration does not extinguish an admitted substantive credit entitlement. The differential credit is consequently refundable in cash with consequential relief according to law.

Construction of residential complexes by a builder for prospective purchasers before 1 July 2010 was treated as self-service and was not subject to service tax, including where undertaken through composite works contracts. The Explanation inserted in section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 deemed construction intended for sale by a builder to be a service provided to the buyer, thereby expanding the taxable-service scope. Its operation was prospective from 1 July 2010 and did not apply to pre-insertion construction activities. Accordingly, no service tax liability arose for such pre-1 July 2010 residential-complex construction.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires evidence of a positive, deliberate act of suppression with intent to evade tax; mere non-payment or non-declaration is insufficient. Interpretation of the exemption for airfield drainage services under Entry 12(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST supported a bona fide belief that the services were exempt. As no wilful suppression was established, the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not available, rendering the demand sustained solely on that basis unsustainable.

Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 removes penalty exposure where short-paid service tax and applicable interest are paid before a show cause notice is issued, with those payments validly appropriated. Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 permits excess service tax paid in one period to be adjusted against liability in a succeeding month or quarter. Applying the General Clauses Act principle that singular includes plural, "succeeding" periods are not confined to the immediately following month or quarter. Accordingly, adjustment against a later succeeding period is permissible absent an express restriction.

Approved resolution plans bind the Central Government in respect of statutory dues and settle or extinguish claims not included in the plan. Where no departmental claim was lodged for service-tax liabilities arising before the resolution-plan closing date, the pre-plan demand falls within the plan's settlement mechanism. Consequently, the service-tax demand, together with related interest and penalty, stands discharged and settled under the approved resolution plan.

Pre-01.07.2012 service-tax demands under the positive-list regime required the show cause notice to identify the specific taxable service under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. Foreign-currency expenditure and reverse-charge non-payment alone could not establish liability across heterogeneous transactions. An appellate authority could not introduce new classifications, such as Commercial Training or Coaching Service or Club or Association Service, to cure that foundational omission. Accordingly, the restored demand lacked a valid notice-based basis; consequential interest and Section 78 penalty also failed. Separately adjudicated post-01.07.2012 proceedings remained outside the scope of reopening and retained their existing effect.

Composite engineering assignments are classified by their specific description and essential character under section 65A, rather than by inspection-related components that are ancillary to the overall engineering engagement. Drawing assistance, technical clarification, product development, rectification, material specifications and quality coordination support classification as engineering services rather than Technical Inspection and Certification Service. Services supplied to an overseas contractual recipient for convertible foreign exchange qualify as exports where the recipient is abroad and the Department cannot establish domestic use or that physical availability of goods was necessary. Prior disclosure of the arrangement prevents extended limitation based on wilful suppression; consequential tax, interest and penalties do not survive without sustainable liability.

CENVAT credit remains available for eligible input services received at unregistered premises because registration of the premises is not a condition for credit. Credit is excluded, however, for the service portion of works contracts used to construct or set up BPO branches, absent proof that the services were solely for repair, renovation, or modernisation. Extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax; disclosure in ST-3 returns, refund claims, and related proceedings confines recovery to the normal period. Interest follows the surviving inadmissible credit demand, while penalties do not arise merely from non-inclusion of premises under centralised registration.

De novo adjudication must independently reconcile relevant facts, figures and evidence, verify sales-tax material, and consider the assessee's explanation as required by remand directions. Mechanical adoption of findings from an earlier order that was set aside, without addressing evidence, submissions or cited authorities, fails to show application of mind. Quasi-judicial determinations affecting rights must provide cogent reasons and comply with natural justice and the remand mandate. The de novo order was therefore unsustainable and required fresh adjudication in accordance with the earlier directions.

Works-contract services supplied to a Government authority for road construction and river-ghat protection qualified for service-tax exemption. Repair services supplied to a subsidiary company did not qualify because it was not established as a governmental authority; reverse-charge payment by the recipient covered only its share, leaving the provider liable for the balance. Failure to register, file returns and timely pay tax attracts civil penalties without proof of mens rea. Interest follows the surviving tax liability; the tax-linked penalty was correspondingly reduced, while registration and return-default penalties remained operative.

Service-tax demand based solely on PAN-level 26AS receipts cannot be sustained against one registration where the same receipts have been wholly attributed to multiple registrations under the same PAN. Independent processing of identical differential receipts against three registrations, coupled with prior dropping of equivalent demands in two matters, undermines the proposed demand. Absent correlation between the receipts and activities from the registered premises, or verification that they represented undeclared taxable services, the tax demand, consequential interest and penalties are unsustainable.

Pre-1 July 2012 service-tax liability required identification of the applicable specified taxable service; demands without an established taxable category do not survive. From 1 July 2012, consideration for activities performed by one person for another is taxable, subject to the normal limitation period. Revenue neutrality arising from available reverse-charge credit negates mala fide intent and prevents use of the extended limitation period. Payments to foreign service providers constitute consideration rather than reimbursable expenses where received services are established. Cum-tax valuation is unavailable where service tax is payable by the recipient under reverse charge. Penalties for suppression and return-related contraventions do not survive where mala fide intent is absent and returns were filed.

Separately priced ocean freight, port charges and handling services retain their distinct tax classifications and cannot be aggregated as Cargo Handling Service merely because they support coal movement. Port-area services fall within the separate port-service classification, while pre-01.09.2009 coastal ocean carriage under principal-to-principal charter arrangements was not Business Auxiliary Service; the specific waterways levy applied only from that date. Extended limitation for waterways tax is unavailable where transactions were disclosed, earlier notices covered substantially the same activities, the dispute concerns classification, and reverse-charge credit created revenue neutrality. Consequently, the associated tax demands, interest and penalties fail.

Notification-based service-tax exemption requires the claimant to establish eligibility with supporting contractual evidence. Where work orders, agreements and tender documents are not produced to correlate receipts with allegedly exempt handling and transportation services, the exemption claim remains unsubstantiated. Unanswered assertions concerning contractual rates and taxes further weaken the challenge to the demand. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily warrant interference in those circumstances, particularly where a statutory appellate remedy is available; the taxpayer may pursue that remedy in accordance with law.

Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires expeditious adjudication in extended-period matters. Its qualification, "where it is possible to do so", permits only a reasonable and legally justifiable departure from the prescribed timeframe; it does not allow indefinite delay. An unexplained, inordinate delay in issuing an adjudication order is arbitrary and violates this requirement. Although an appellate remedy ordinarily limits writ intervention, writ jurisdiction remains available where delayed adjudication raises a foundational legal issue and offends Article 14.

Service-tax treatment of construction services for Traffic and Transit Management Centers concerns whether a transport-terminal exclusion applies under the taxable-service definition. Relevant considerations include whether construction of bus terminals is recognised as a separate activity and whether the extended period of limitation may be invoked. Transport-terminal classification, recognition of the relevant construction activity, and limitation requirements govern the service-tax analysis.