Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires affirmative satisfaction that an accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend before bail in commercial-quantity offences; prolonged pre-trial custody and Article 21 protections do not displace those twin conditions. Bail granted without recording that satisfaction, particularly where the accused's role, prior NDPS conviction, enhanced-punishment exposure, absconding risk and surety credibility require scrutiny, is unsustainable. Targeted safeguards for foreign nationals include passport deposit, FRRO registration, verified sureties, address and financial verification, embassy intimation, digital surety-verification systems, action over fake sureties, charges over surety property, and Form 47A under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Verification under the retrospective amendment scheme had to be completed within two months under the Finance Act, 2010, with recovery and interest permitted for any shortfall. Although verification and confirmation of the demand occurred after substantial delay, delay alone did not invalidate the demand where its merits were not challenged. The Tribunal's jurisdiction did not extend to quashing the demand solely for prolonged departmental delay, a remedy associated with constitutional jurisdiction. However, the delay justified relief from interest: the demand remained payable, but no interest was payable on it.

Excess refund or self-credit demands require recalculation after applying the special value-addition rates fixed for eligible units under the amending notifications. Confirmed recoveries quantified without those rates require fresh determination. Recovery cannot simultaneously cover excess self-credit or refund and excise duty paid through utilisation of the same credit, because this would duplicate recovery for the same amount. Only one of those recoveries may be sustained. The resulting determination must apply the relevant special rates and eliminate overlapping demands.

Cenvat credit is admissible where a registered dealer's invoices contain the particulars required by Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, identify the assessee as consignee, and the inputs are received at the factory and recorded in RG 23A Part I. Direct dispatch of inputs under those invoices does not by itself establish a contravention merely because the buyer lacks dealer registration. In the absence of any allegation that the goods were not received, the credit remains available.

Fertilizer subsidy paid directly by the Government under the Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy is not additional consideration for central excise valuation because it does not flow, directly or indirectly, from purchasers to the manufacturer. Transaction value under section 4 permits additions only where consideration beyond the price originates from the buyer. Linking subsidy amounts to the quantity or category of fertilizer sold does not establish a purchaser-to-manufacturer flow. The applicable Board clarification likewise treats the subsidy as unconnected with buyers. The subsidy is therefore excluded from assessable value, and consequential duty, interest and penalty demands do not survive.

Refundable amounts deposited during investigation before any determination or appropriation of duty remain revenue deposits or unspent advance deposits, even if credited to a personal ledger account. They do not acquire the character of duty solely through that accounting treatment. Consequently, the refund and delayed-refund framework under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not govern such amounts. Interest is payable from the respective dates of deposit until refund, at 12% per annum where the Revenue retained the deposit for a prolonged period.

Section 11D(1A) requires every person, including a non-manufacturer contractor, to credit to the Central Government any amount collected from customers as representing excise duty that exceeds the duty assessed, determined and paid on excisable goods. Its scope is not confined to manufacturers. Separate identification or incorporation of excise duty in accepted bid prices and invoices, together with declarations that statutory duties had been deposited, supported the finding that excess duty had been collected. Authorities concerning cum-duty prices, blank duty columns, or no collection of excess duty did not apply. The excess collected amount is payable to the Central Government with applicable interest.

Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires reversal of CENVAT credit only when credit-availing inputs or unused capital goods are written off, wholly or partly, or provision is made for their write-off. Writing off supplier liabilities alone does not establish that the underlying duty-paid inputs were written off or unused, particularly where accounts and stock evidence do not support that conclusion. Recovery based on such entries requires proof of the relevant goods-related facts. The extended limitation period is unavailable where write-off entries were recorded in the accounts, known to audit, and no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty is established.

Service tax applies to the portion of a Maintenance Fund actually used by a developer to maintain common areas and amenities before formation of a housing society. The developer undertakes maintenance for consideration, bringing that activity within taxable maintenance, management and repair service. In contrast, a Corpus Fund and unutilised Maintenance Fund transferred intact to the housing society do not represent consideration where no service was agreed or rendered against them. Tax liability is therefore confined to funds deployed for maintenance, and any penalty is correspondingly limited.

Service-tax liability did not extend to receipts attributable to periods after 1 July 2017, when the GST regime replaced the Finance Act, 1994 framework; discrepancies in post-GST receipts may instead require action under GST law. Transportation of food grains and chemical fertilisers through GTA services falls within the relevant exemption, while specified handling and storage activities for agricultural produce fall within the Negative List. Hiring goods vehicles to GTAs is exempt. GTA services supplied to body corporates are subject to reverse charge in the recipient's hands. Form 26AS-based demands require evidence that the receipts represent taxable services.

Airport repair and maintenance involving transfer of property in goods falls within works contract, with no airport-specific exclusion. Where contract records do not identify the goods transferred or their contract-specific value, valuation under Rule 2A(i) is unavailable; repair and maintenance contracts are valued under Rule 2A(ii), allowing only the prescribed abatement. Pre-show cause notice consultation does not require a separate adjudicatory order. Non-filing of ST-3 returns and undisclosed short payment support extended limitation and statutory penalties. Providers of taxable and exempt services that do not adopt a Rule 6 compliance option may face recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit in full rather than authority-directed proportionate reversal.

Supply of Tangible Goods Service applies where an aircraft lessor retains legal possession and effective control, including operational responsibility, use rights when the lessee is not using the aircraft, trip-wise redelivery, and termination rights. Taxable value cannot include unrelated "other collections" absent an alleged and established nexus with the aircraft lease. Receipts already subjected to a demand against a related concern cannot be taxed again on the same transaction. The extended limitation period requires a fresh positive act of suppression or intent to evade tax; absent these elements, only the normal period applies. Penalties for fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression are not sustainable where those elements are unproved and reasonable cause exists.

SEZ service-tax exemption under Notification No. 9/2009 applies to approved taxable services supplied for authorised operations of an SEZ unit, including services rendered by a subcontractor through a main contractor. A certificate issued in the main contractor's name may establish that the services were provided to an authorised person where the services were approved for the unit's authorised operations. Non-submission of Form A-1 does not defeat the exemption for periods before its introduction, and the requirement is procedural rather than a condition overriding substantive eligibility.

Towers and pre-fabricated buildings used in mobile telecommunication services qualify as goods and as inputs under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Although they do not directly transmit signals, they are indispensable for the functioning and positioning of antennas and have a close, inseparable nexus with the provision of output telecommunication services. The phrase "used for providing any output service" extends beyond equipment that directly transmits signals. CENVAT credit is therefore admissible on these items.

Limited interim access to frozen funds may be permitted pending appeal to meet verified employee salary arrears and statutory liabilities of a holding company. Where the applicant has no employees or independent operations but received substantial funds from its holding company and prima facie owes it amounts, the balance of convenience can support essential payments. Requiring defaults in TDS and GST remittances is not justified when the Central Government benefits from those payments and safeguards can preserve the freezing action. Relief operates only after verification of salary details and statutory dues, followed by bank authorisation for legitimately payable amounts; appeal merits remain open.

Provisional attachment of property held by a company not accused of money laundering requires material showing that proceeds of crime were transferred to the company and used for acquisition, or that the asset is validly identifiable as equivalent-value property of a person involved in money laundering. Property acquired through a bank auction using documented loan funds and the company's own savings cannot be treated as proceeds of crime without a demonstrated money trail. Alleged control by the principal accused, based mainly on unsupported witness statements, does not establish the accused's title, use of layered proceeds, or an equivalent-value basis for attachment. The attachment was therefore unsustainable.

Production before an available Magistrate after court hours, followed by production before the Special Court within twenty-four hours, does not invalidate arrest or detention without resulting prejudice. Communication of arrest grounds is not prima facie deficient where the arrestee received them and surrounding circumstances indicate relatives knew of the arrest and grounds. Bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act requires satisfaction of the statutory threshold; prolonged custody alone does not justify release where prima facie material links the accused to proceeds of crime and risks of witness influence, evidence tampering, or flight persist.

An unsuccessful scheme proponent may withdraw after its proposed scheme is not accepted and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. An earnest money deposit guarantee secures submission of the proponent's scheme; it does not, without a valid legal basis, oblige the proponent to continue formulating or pursuing a revised scheme acceptable to the committee of creditors or the Adjudicating Authority. Recovery of the guarantee for the liquidation estate is unsustainable where the proponent lawfully exercises its commercial choice to withdraw and no enforceable basis for forfeiture is established.

Committee of Creditors may reconsider and reject a resolution plan remitted for reconsideration where statutory and stakeholder claims must be addressed and the resolution applicant declines to revise the plan or accommodate additional claims. Unchallenged directions requiring such reconsideration attain finality. The Committee's commercial decision on plan acceptance, rejection or liquidation is non-justiciable before the Adjudicating Authority approves a resolution plan. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits the Committee to resolve for liquidation before that approval. Rejection of the proposed plan and non-interference with the Committee's decision were treated as valid.

Section 100(4) gives requisitioning members an additional, alternative right to call and hold an extraordinary general meeting if the Board fails to act on a valid requisition; it need not be exhausted before seeking relief under Section 98. Section 98 independently permits the Tribunal to direct a meeting only where convening or conducting it through ordinary mechanisms is reasonably impracticable. This exceptional jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and requires concrete factual proof, not merely director disagreement or rejection of a requisition by a Board majority. In the absence of foundational evidence that shareholders could not convene the meeting, intervention under Section 98 is unavailable.