EPCG authorisations require the stipulated export obligation to be met within eight years through use of imported capital goods in authorised hotel services. A notice issued before expiry of that period cannot establish non-fulfilment where declared foreign-exchange earnings and an application for export-obligation discharge remain unaddressed. Hotel-business use of imported vehicles meets the actual user condition; the Scheme and exemption notifications do not require vehicle-wise proof of foreign-exchange earnings or daily operational records. Parking, registration, insurance and driver-related allegations do not by themselves prove diversion from authorised use. On these facts, confiscation, denial of concessional duty and penalties are unsustainable.

Powers under section 83 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017 are delegated to Assistant Commissioners and Goods and Services Tax Officers as Proper Officers. Exercise of the delegated power requires prior, case-specific approval from the concerned Zonal Incharge, Special Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, or Joint Commissioner.

Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; mere GST non-payment is insufficient. Material evidence of those elements must be included in the show-cause notice. Section 74A introduces a common limitation period for fraud and non-fraud cases, while retaining the fraud distinction at adjudication for higher penalties where intentional tax evasion or ineligible input tax credit is established. Legacy-period notices under Section 74 may therefore be examined for whether they disclose the necessary factual basis for invoking the fraud-based provision.

Separate show cause notices arising from a common customs investigation retain independent legal identity where they concern distinct subject matters and statutory consequences. Common assignment to one adjudicating authority and joint hearings are matters of administrative convenience and do not create a composite proceeding. An interim stay confined to one notice cannot be extended by implication to restrain adjudication under another notice. Challenges involving relied-upon material, hearing opportunity, limitation, extensions, or Call Book treatment may be examined through the statutory appellate process or before the competent forum.

Revisional proceedings under Section 263 against a corporate debtor cannot be continued or culminate in a revisional order during the subsistence of the moratorium. Following cessation of the moratorium, revisional proceedings may be revived and reframed if permissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Income-tax Act, and applicable law, with reasonable opportunity of hearing afforded through the resolution professional or another competent representative of the corporate debtor.

Customs Broker liability for import undervaluation depends on the broker's own conduct, involvement and diligence, not solely on the importer's declaration. Penalty liability and penalty quantum are distinct inquiries. A prior request for first-check examination before assessment may evidence bona fide conduct by bringing the goods to the Department's notice, although it does not automatically prevent penalty. Documented compliance, including client advice, examination requests, correspondence and checklists, may materially influence the assessment of culpability and proportionality of penalty.

Input tax credit on construction for leasing depends on whether the property is constructed on own account. Construction intended for sale, lease or licence forms part of a taxable commercial supply and differs from construction for personal use or premises from which business is directly carried on. Credit claims for leased properties require application of this distinction before the blocked-credit provision is invoked. This approach supports creditability of construction inputs where completed property is intended for leasing and promotes tax neutrality.

The National Assessment Centre Portal serves as a central digital repository for customs assessment information, including NAC decisions, advance rulings, audit objections, legal decisions, advisories, classification and valuation material, and trade-facilitation committee deliberations. Searchable access is intended to help importers, Customs Brokers and officers research assessment issues, promote consistent treatment of similar goods, and reduce divergent practices. NACs must regularly upload and manage information within their allocated commodity and functional domains, with priority for matters requiring uniform assessment guidance.

Customs classification must reflect the imported goods' intrinsic function and specific tariff description, with specific entries prevailing over general or residuary entries. Section 28 is a duty-recovery mechanism and cannot independently alter classification in a completed assessment without a differential duty demand. Wrong classification alone does not establish suppression or wilful misstatement for extended limitation; cogent evidence of culpable conduct is required. Penalties and confiscation require independent statutory grounds, while interest on differential IGST requires clear statutory authority.

Facilitated Bills of Entry for cosmetics, drugs and medical devices remain subject to mandatory CDSCO-related document verification before Out-of-Charge. Importers must provide applicable registrations, licences or permissions, commercial documents, compliant labels, batch-specific quality records, storage-premises documentation, declarations and undertakings. Product descriptions, pack sizes, quantities, manufacturer details, batches and dates must match the relevant regulatory approval and import documents. Residual shelf-life requirements apply to cosmetics, drugs and medical devices, while APIs require QR-code traceability. Discrepancies or doubts may lead to referral to the relevant CDSCO port office. Required documents should be uploaded on e-SANCHIT.

Statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act was made available despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period where the auction purchaser had diligently pursued a writ challenge after refusal of refund. The Tribunal must consider on merits whether non-disclosure of a subsisting attachment in an auction sale breached the requirement to disclose material facts concerning the property's nature and value. The application may be filed within the prescribed three-week period and must be accepted without a separate application for condonation of delay.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 56(1) could not be exercised by a Joint Commissioner (Executive) without a notification, circular, statutory delegation, or authorisation from the Commissioner. A jurisdictional defect goes to the root of the matter and may be raised at any stage, including in revision. In the absence of material establishing delegated or authorised power, revisional proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner (Executive) were void from inception.

Priority of a registered security interest under the SARFAESI Act over crown debts, including sales tax, commercial tax and income-tax dues, depends on the statutory registration and priority framework. The issues also concern registration of auction sale certificates despite attachments and remittance of auction-sale surplus to tax departments. The Special Leave Petition challenging these matters was dismissed because the 878-day delay was not satisfactorily explained. The legal questions on priority, attachment and sale-certificate registration were left open for determination in an appropriate matter.

Cenvat credit eligibility turns on the statutory nexus of goods or services with manufacture. Services used to establish and install a manufacturing facility may qualify as input services despite pre-production use, and common infrastructure outside factory boundaries may qualify where it supports industrial operations without personal use. Goods used within the factory may be inputs even if they are neither capital goods nor components of final products. Differential duty claimed through a post-GST supplementary invoice requires correlation with the original clearance and revised value. Credit reversals and utilisation-based interest require reconciliation of statutory records, with no duplicate recovery. Extended limitation and penalties require positive evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade duty.

Unjust enrichment restricts a service-tax refund under Section 11B to the portion for which the claimant proves that the duty burden was not passed to another person. An auditor's certificate may establish whether the incidence was recovered, but recovery from members demonstrates that the burden was passed on to that extent. Refund is therefore available only for the uncollected portion of Rs. 6,41,369, while the amount recovered from members is barred from refund. Applicable interest is payable under Section 11BB on the refundable amount.

Late-payment charges imposed for delayed payment for supplied industrial gases, though described as interest, constitute damages for breach rather than consideration for an obligation to tolerate an act or situation. A declared service requires consideration, which is absent where the amount is a consequence of an undesired act, breach, or unanticipated situation. Such late-payment charges therefore do not qualify as a taxable declared service and are not liable to service tax.

Delayed-payment charges imposed for breach of electricity-bill payment obligations are not consideration for tolerating an act unless a reciprocal agreement requires tolerance for consideration; such charges remain connected to electricity distribution and recovery. Meter-testing charges are naturally bundled with electricity distribution because testing enables consumption measurement and accurate billing, so they receive the principal service's non-taxable treatment rather than becoming an independent taxable service. The extended limitation period does not apply without evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax, particularly where charges are disclosed in tariff orders, regulations and accounts and the dispute concerns statutory interpretation. Consequently, the disputed receipts do not attract service tax, interest or penalty.

For quarterly CENVAT credit refund claims relating to export of services, limitation runs from the end of the quarter in which the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate is received. Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules permits refunds for the relevant period, while Notification No. 27/2012 permits only one refund application per quarter. Calculating limitation separately from each remittance certificate receipt would improperly shorten the available filing period where certificates are received near quarter-end. The Larger Bench principle treating the quarter-end as the relevant date continues to apply notwithstanding the 2016 amendment. Refund claims filed within the resulting quarterly limitation period remain valid.

Extension of the ninety-day period under Regulation 2B(1) for a compromise or arrangement under Section 230 may be granted where it is commercially beneficial and prevents value destruction. Assignment of debt after an earlier rejection can constitute a material change in circumstances when it creates a new sole financial creditor with an independent commercial mandate, rather than a collateral challenge to the prior decision. A proposed scheme exceeding liquidation value, supported by the financial creditor and directed at revival rather than piecemeal liquidation, supports extension. Commercial wisdom of the financial creditor should not be substituted, making rejection of the extension request unsustainable.

Late presentation charges under Regulation 4(4) of the Bill of Entry (Electronic Integrated Declaration and Paperless Processing) Regulations, 2018 cannot exceed the duty payable. Any amount collected beyond that statutory cap cannot be retained merely because the electronic system recorded a higher charge. As the late fee arises under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 27 provides a maintainable refund route where no separate refund mechanism exists. Restitution requires repayment of charges collected contrary to the prescribed limit.