AE segmental benchmarking under TNMM requires consideration of segmental results included in the transfer-pricing study and certified information furnished before completion of the transfer-pricing assessment. Neither the Act nor the Rules requires audited segmental accounts; where the AE-segment margin falls within the arm's-length range of selected comparables, rejection on conjectural grounds is unwarranted and the related adjustment is deleted. Ind AS presentation of part of compulsorily convertible debentures as equity does not change their underlying debt character before actual conversion or redemption. Interest remains deductible in principle, subject to verification that no conversion or redemption occurred during the relevant year.

Section 28(9A) of the Customs Act suspends the adjudication limitation period while a specified circumstance prevents determination of duty liability, with the statutory period recommencing when that circumstance ceases. Transfer of a matter to the Call Book is an administrative consequence of such deferment and does not independently create the exclusion period. Where noticees seek deferment because a connected writ petition and interim protection affect the underlying duty liability, those circumstances are directly relevant to non-determination. Noticees' own request for deferment may substantially satisfy the communication requirement. The limitation period consequently runs from dismissal of the connected writ petition, and adjudication within the ensuing unextended one-year period is timely.

Sections 130 and 130E of the Customs Act exclude High Court appellate jurisdiction over questions relating to the rate of customs duty, including peripheral issues affecting assessment. Entitlement to customs-duty exemption for stores imported for vessel-salvage operations bears on the rate of duty and has wider application; it must therefore be challenged directly before the Supreme Court under Section 130E. Appeals raising that exemption issue are not maintainable before the High Court and are liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with the Revenue free to approach the Supreme Court.

Freezing of a bank account under section 110(5) of the Customs Act may initially continue for six months and be extended once for a further six months only on recorded written reasons. Issuance of a show-cause notice does not preserve investigating authorities' power to continue the freeze beyond the statutory maximum of twelve months. As the maximum period had expired, the High Court found a prima facie basis for de-freezing and directed the bank to de-freeze the account forthwith.

Non-compliance with import conditions for restricted gold renders the goods prohibited for confiscation purposes, whether the items are treated as gold bars or jewellery. Failure to meet eligible passenger, declaration and permissible-import requirements may support absolute confiscation. Redemption under Section 125 is discretionary rather than a right. Non-declaration, concealment and surrounding circumstances may justify refusal of redemption on payment of fine. Writ review does not ordinarily disturb that discretionary decision unless it is perverse or arbitrary. Absolute confiscation of the gold ornaments and refusal to permit redemption were upheld.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment may dispense with a speaking order but does not waive the statutory right to appeal. Declared transaction value cannot be rejected without complying with the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules: the importer must receive written grounds for doubting the declared value, and any redetermination must follow the prescribed sequential valuation method. Payment of enhanced duty under protest and undisclosed comparable-import data do not establish unconditional acceptance of enhanced value. Orders-in-Appeal rejecting valuation challenges solely because of acceptance letters were set aside, with consequential relief according to law.

Advance Authorisation IGST exemption remains subject to the pre-import condition; later fulfilment of export obligation or issuance of EODCs does not erase an established breach. Imports breaching that condition must instead be regularised under the prescribed procedure, with EODCs and redemption certificates relevant to liability. IGST breach must be quantified Bill of Entry-wise and raw material-wise by correlating imports, exports and chronology, while accounting for permitted clubbing of authorisations. The IGST demand requires fresh quantification on that basis. For the relevant period, recovery provisions did not independently authorise interest, confiscation, redemption fine or penalty for the IGST liability; those consequential liabilities were set aside, including interest on re-quantified IGST.

Rule 12 permits rejection of declared customs value only where there is reason to doubt its truth or accuracy, the importer has an opportunity to explain the price, and valuation follows the prescribed method, including contemporaneous import values where relevant. Unsupported intelligence and recovered documents did not establish undervaluation, rendering redetermination and differential duty unsustainable. Electronic data, messages, emails and invoices required statutory certification and reliable authentication; unauthenticated material could not prove undervaluation. Each IEC holder filing its own bill of entry remained the importer liable for duty, preventing recovery from an alleged proxy importer. Goods unavailable for confiscation could not attract confiscation or redemption fine.

Classification of specially designed GEHO slurry pump components depends on their sole or principal use where they may fall under more than one tariff heading. Pins, bolts, diaphragms, valves, gaskets, seals, bushes, liners and allied items manufactured exclusively for, and unusable with machines other than, the GEHO pump qualify as pump parts rather than parts of general use or independently classifiable rubber articles. The declared classification was sustained, while reclassification, differential duty, interest and penalties were set aside with consequential relief.

Bail in an investigation into alleged customs and anti-dumping duty evasion through invalid certificates of origin was granted because the key evidence was documentary, relevant records had been seized, and further verification of supplier correspondence and Bills of Lading could continue without custodial confinement. Concerns over evidence tampering were addressed through safeguards requiring cooperation with the investigation, attendance when summoned, non-tampering with evidence, passport surrender, and restrictions on foreign travel.

Accused already on bail should ordinarily receive summons before an arrest warrant is issued after a complaint is transferred to a Special Court. A warrant may follow only where circumstances justify it. Issuing a warrant without first summoning such accused is unlawful and liable to be set aside. The accused must appear on the next listed date; on default, the Trial Court may lawfully adopt measures to secure attendance.

Continuing failure to deliver possession of an allotted unit or refund amounts received constituted a continuing default, creating a continuing cause of action for a financial creditor's insolvency application. Inclusion of the creditor's claim in a settlement scheme operated as an acknowledgment of debt, preventing the claim from being treated as time-barred. The application therefore remained within limitation. Once the revival scheme was declared unworkable and parties were permitted to revive insolvency proceedings, objections based on the scheme's subsistence and parallel proceedings no longer survived. The corporate debtor's admission into insolvency consequently remained effective.

FERA penalty quantification must be reasoned, reasonable and proportionate to the contravention; the statutory maximum under Section 50 does not by itself justify the amount imposed. Where certain export-realisation contraventions were excluded and an RBI write-off was noted, retaining the original penalty without explaining its basis was disproportionate. A finding that the penalty was not harsh or excessive, without articulated quantification reasons, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore set aside and redetermined at a lower amount, with the appeal partly allowed.

Prolonged incarceration in a money-laundering prosecution may, in an appropriate case, outweigh the statutory twin conditions governing bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act. Bail was granted where the accused had remained in custody for over a year, was already on bail in the predicate offence, and investigation into that offence remained incomplete. Material examined in the money-laundering investigation included matters whose connection with tainted money and the predicate offence required trial determination. Release was made subject to safeguards, including passport surrender, travel restrictions, regular trial-court attendance, and non-contact with witnesses.

Quashing of predicate proceedings for lack of investigative jurisdiction removes the subsisting nexus required between alleged proceeds of crime and criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Where the predicate prosecution against a person is quashed in its entirety, and that order remains operative and unchallenged, the Enforcement Directorate cannot independently preserve or notionally revive the predicate offence for money-laundering proceedings. Proceedings against other accused cannot establish the missing statutory nexus attributable to that person. PMLA summons and consequential proceedings were quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if the predicate prosecution is lawfully restored or revived.

Confirmation of provisional attachment in money-laundering proceedings requires a prima facie showing of involvement; final criminal liability remains for trial. Communications, statements, cash-delivery arrangements, overseas transactions and recovered material may establish active receipt and layering of proceeds of crime, without reliance solely on a co-accused's statement. A person asserting that funds were a loan must substantiate that claim where the reverse burden applies. Where proceeds of crime are unavailable because they have vanished or been laundered, other property representing their value may be attached, including property acquired before the crime period. The provisional attachment was sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Service-tax exemption for NSDC skill-development programmes requires the provider itself to meet the notification's specified approval condition. An associate learning centre serving an NSDC-approved training partner did not qualify, so the normal-period demand relating to PMKVY services remained. Education connected with university degree courses qualified for the Negative List exemption where it formed part of a curriculum leading to a qualification recognised by law; direct provision by a university was not required, and that demand was set aside. Extended limitation was unavailable because wilful suppression with intent to evade was not established, resulting in deletion of the extended-period demand.

Free home delivery of ready-to-eat food, involving preparation at the supplier's premises and delivery at a customer-specified time and place, was treated as a taxable service with a significant service element. From July 2012, supplying food for human consumption in this manner fell within declared services and also within the earlier concept of outdoor catering. Service tax was consequently sustainable for the normal limitation period. The extended limitation period and related penalty were not sustainable because the supplier was registered, filed ST-3 returns, paid service tax, and the allegations arose from its own records, with no evidence of suppression intended to evade tax.

Appealability of Tribunal directions under Rule 41 is limited: a procedural or implementation direction intended to give effect to a final order is not an order passed in appeal and falls outside Section 35G appellate jurisdiction. Rule 41 permits consequential directions, including compensatory interest, where necessary to implement a final refund order. Service tax paid for laying potable-water pipelines for a State agency's public-welfare project was treated as paid under a mistake of law rather than as duty, displacing duty-refund limitation requirements. Interest runs from three months after the original refund application, not later supporting documents; statutory delayed-duty refund rate limits do not govern compensatory interest.

Rechargeable lanterns, emergency lamps and study lamps with built-in rechargeable batteries fall under CETH 8513 1090 as portable electric lamps with a self-contained electricity source. Connection to AC mains solely to recharge the batteries does not convert them into lamps operating from an external fixed power source under CETH 9405 2010. Where the revised classification was disclosed to the Department through intimation and monthly ER-1 returns, and the dispute arose from tariff interpretation following audit, suppression is not established. The extended limitation period and penalties therefore do not apply; differential duty and interest remain sustainable only for the non-time-barred period, subject to the portion already set aside.