Countervailing duty refunds under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 require the importer to rebut the presumption under Section 28D that the duty burden was passed on. A chartered accountant's certificate must be considered when supported by books of account and other documents. Invoices showing that the duty was neither recovered from buyers nor reflected in them support rebuttal. Non-claiming of countervailing duty as expenditure does not establish that its burden was passed on.

Personal penalties on customs officers under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 require proof of mens rea and a positive, deliberate act of abetment rendering goods liable to confiscation. Mere negligence, administrative oversight or inefficient performance of official duties does not establish penal abetment, although disciplinary action may follow. Relevant circumstances include the absence of personal benefit or concerted action with exporters, ordinary processing of exporter-generated documents, and prompt disclosure of a clearance completed before a cautionary alert. A later alert cannot retrospectively justify penalising an earlier clearance.

Non-textured brown rice protein powder containing cereal proteins is covered by the specific description under heading 3504 rather than heading 2106. The 90% protein reference for vegetable protein isolates is not a mandatory threshold for separately covered cereal proteins, and the most-akin test under Rule 4 does not apply where earlier classification rules resolve the issue. Customs authorities bear the burden of proving a different classification with reliable evidence. Where goods are correctly described and their classification is known to the department, a differing tariff interpretation alone does not establish suppression or justify the extended limitation period. An incorrect tariff claim alone does not justify confiscation where description and value are accurate; redemption fine cannot be imposed when goods are unavailable for confiscation.

Court-directed customs deposits made towards prospective duty liability are not subject to the statutory limitation or conditions for refund of customs duty under Section 27(1A) where imported goods are released without assessment. A bank guarantee secures the liability but does not constitute payment of customs duty. An inference of final duty determination is not an assessment by the proper officer, so the amounts retain their character as deposits. Refund of those deposits includes applicable interest from the date of deposit until the date of refund.

Seizure of unmarked gold under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires reasonable belief based on tangible material and objective circumstances existing at the time of seizure. Unexplained possession combined with purity comparable to domestic gold is insufficient, and without the required belief, the reverse burden under Section 123 cannot be invoked. Confiscation cannot rest solely on retracted statements without independent corroboration of foreign origin and smuggled character; reliance on statements also requires compliance with Section 138B. Penalties for smuggling or abetment require evidence establishing involvement.

Related-party status alone does not justify rejecting the declared transaction value of imported goods. Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 requires examination of whether the relationship influenced the price. Accepted transaction values of identical or similar goods imported from unrelated suppliers cannot be ignored when assessing related-party imports. Valuation methods must be applied sequentially, exhausting Rules 3 to 5 before resorting to Rules 7 to 9.

Punishment for contempt under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requires deliberate disobedience to be established beyond doubt. Evidence of an alleged breach of a restraint on operating company bank accounts may include cheque issuance and bank statements showing encashment or withdrawals. Section 425 of the Companies Act attracts the Contempt of Courts Act, including its appellate remedy under section 19. That remedy is confined to orders punishing for contempt and does not extend to dismissal or discontinuance of contempt proceedings. A contempt applicant acts as an informer; continuation of proceedings rests with the adjudicating forum.

In personal guarantor insolvency proceedings initiated by a creditor under Section 95, appointment of a resolution professional under Section 97 is mandatory. The statutory stages under Sections 95 to 99 do not involve judicial adjudication. Objections to the creditor's locus and the maintainability of the application are determined under Section 100 after the resolution professional submits a report. This includes objections to a minority debenture holder's authority under the debenture trust deed, which cannot be adjudicated at the appointment stage.

Recall for denial of a hearing presupposes an adverse order affecting the applicant. Non-impleadment of an enforcement authority does not justify recall where an order merely directs reconsideration of a resolution-plan proposal, leaves provisional attachment intact and does not adjudicate the authority's rights. Recall cannot be used to rehear or review the merits, replace an available but unavailed statutory appeal, or obtain a fresh declaration excluding attached property from a resolution plan. An unappealed plan-approval order that has attained finality binds stakeholders, including government authorities.

A genuine pre-existing dispute requires rejection of an operational creditor's application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where it raises a plausible contention requiring further investigation; the defence need not be shown likely to succeed. Contemporaneous correspondence concerning unresolved credit-note adjustments, detention and demurrage claims, and account reconciliation can establish such a dispute. Failure to reply to a demand notice within ten days does not prevent the corporate debtor from producing evidence of a pre-existing dispute. A without-prejudice holding response denying the debt may also constitute notice of dispute, even without specific details.

Money-laundering proceedings founded solely on a scheduled-offence FIR cannot survive when that FIR is quashed. Proceeds of crime must derive from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence; property linked to a quashed offence cannot independently sustain proceedings based on that offence. An ECIR and consequential proceedings cannot continue on allegations arising solely from proceedings that no longer exist in law. Liberty to revive the ECIR proceedings may be granted if the predicate FIR proceedings are revived.

Review of a criminal writ order directing registration of an FIR is available under Rule 29 of the Madras High Court Writ Rules on the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; the criminal procedure bars on review do not curtail constitutional writ jurisdiction. Recall for denial of hearing depends on entitlement to a hearing and is not limited to orders that leave the merits undecided. A preliminary direction to register an FIR and investigate determines no guilt and need not await every proposed accused's version. Section 175(4) BNSS applies to a Magistrate directing investigation on a complaint and does not create a general right to a hearing before a writ court acting on statutory agency information that prima facie discloses a cognizable off.....

Before 1 July 2012, a residential complex required more than twelve residential units, common areas, specified facilities and an approved layout. Other independently owned houses in the same colony did not, by themselves, establish that individual construction contracts concerned a residential complex. From 1 July 2012, independently constructed single residential units outside residential complexes qualified for exemption. Separate ownership and construction agreements supported their independent character; a shared layout, boundary or amenities did not alone establish inclusion in a complex. For flats sold with an undivided land interest for consolidated consideration, the absence of a separate land valuation or precise breakdown of corne.....

Service tax exemptions cover construction or repair of dams and irrigation works, public roads and qualifying repairs to governmental civil structures, including office renovation. A construction sub-contractor remains independently liable after withdrawal of an applicable exemption, notwithstanding tax payment by the main contractor. Goods transport agency reverse charge applies to actual freight payments, not loading and unloading expenses or amounts in suppliers' goods invoices; the advocates' legal-services entry does not cover other professionals. Ledger descriptions alone do not establish receipt of taxable manpower supply or works contract services, and a royalty deduction alone does not establish a government grant of natural-resour.....

Service-tax notices issued without the prescribed Document Identification Number are invalid, and departmental officers must treat them as never issued under binding instructions, although they do not become void unless set aside by a competent court or authority. Construction-service tax arises on the earlier of invoicing or receipt of payment, rather than accounting revenue recognition; reconciliation must account for amounts already taxed, current invoices and advances, and applicable abatements and exemptions. Construction-service abatement permits input-service credit but requires land value to be included in the amount charged; the department must prove a breach to deny it. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression, not mere.....

Amounts paid under protest during investigation, before duty liability is determined and without self-assessment, statutory obligation or an adjudicated demand, retain their character as revenue deposits. Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act do not govern their refund or interest, and using the statutory refund procedure does not convert them into duty. Article 265 prohibits retention of money without authority of law; compensatory interest may be awarded without an express interest provision. Interest accrues when the deposits are credited to the government account, without the three-month waiting period under Section 11BB. In the absence of a prescribed rate, judicial precedent supplies a measure of 6% per annum until actual refund.

Substituted service of an adjudication order through the prescribed notice-board procedure starts the appeal limitation period when postal delivery fails. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs service, while Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 governs the appeal period. Placement on the notice board may be recorded in a panchnama after an order sent to the recipient's communication address is returned with a remark that the recipient has left. An appeal filed beyond the applicable limitation period following valid substituted service is time-barred.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a Special Court may take direct cognizance of a money-laundering complaint without hearing the accused beforehand; the special procedure prevails over inconsistent general criminal procedure. The savings provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserves the earlier procedural regime where the investigation began before the new law commenced. A coal-block allocation letter is not itself proceeds of crime, but gains obtained by using the allocation, including through preferential share issues, may qualify. An assessment at the summoning stage does not determine charges or final liability.

The proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS requires an opportunity of hearing, which may be given through the appellant's authorised representative. For the hearing before the Special Court, the authorised representative must appear so that the opportunity can be provided. No further notice will be issued to the appellant.

Complainants with a genuine legal grievance may appeal a final disciplinary order imposing punishment, including on the ground of inadequate punishment, under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Closure of a complaint for lack of a prima facie case is subject to review under the 2017 complaint-handling regulations, not statutory appeal, which does not extend to procedural or interlocutory decisions. A complainant whose complaint initiated the disciplinary proceedings may seek impleadment as a proper party in the service provider's appeal, but need not be impleaded automatically. A stakeholder with an unrelated complaint lacks the direct interest required for impleadment.