Clean Energy Cess on removal of raw coal is imposed on the producer under the Clean Energy Cess Rules, 2010; purchasers who merely buy coal are not liable for that cess. Penalty for dealing with confiscation-liable goods requires, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, a finding that the person knew or had reason to believe the goods were liable to confiscation. Rule 25 applies to specified regulated categories and does not extend to ordinary purchasers outside those categories. In the absence of such a finding, purchasers of confiscated coal cannot be penalised, and penalties collected for release of the coal must be returned.

Manufacture requires transformation into a new and distinct marketable article with a different name, character or use; labour, skill, value addition or processing alone is insufficient where the commodity remains commercially unchanged. Note 6 to Section XVI applies only when an incomplete or unfinished article with the essential character of a finished article is converted into the complete article. Where imported photocopier modules were already assessed as complete machines and warehouse operations were limited to unpacking, grouping, pinning and plugging modules for customer-specific dispatch, those operations did not amount to manufacture. Rule 2(a), being a classification rule, does not determine whether a later process constitutes manufacture.

Road construction and maintenance services performed for municipal and public works authorities fell within the road-related works exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, based on supporting certificates and documents. Receipts for supply of soil represented a sale of goods and were not subject to service tax. A bona fide belief regarding the exempt or non-taxable nature of these receipts did not support invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1). The service-tax demand, together with consequential interest and penalties, was therefore unsustainable.

Service tax on mining royalty depends on when the right to use natural resources was provided or agreed to be provided. Where mining rights were allotted before their exclusion from the negative list, subsequent execution of a lease deed or payment of royalty after 1 April 2016 does not make the earlier assignment taxable; the Point of Taxation Rules cannot expand the charging provision. Extended limitation is unavailable where taxability was a bona fide interpretational dispute, relevant transactions were disclosed in statutory records, and there was no suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement or intent to evade tax. The demand, consequential interest and penalties were therefore unsustainable.

Documents and certificates concerning road repair and maintenance services were material to determining entitlement to service-tax exemption. As they went to the root of the exemption claim, the original authority was required to conduct a fresh merits examination. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration within three months; limitation was not examined.

Service-tax demands based solely on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns cannot invoke the extended limitation period without affirmative evidence of fraud, wilful suppression or intent to evade tax; the demand, related interest and penalty for tax evasion were therefore time-barred. Mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation, required for the applicable demand category when the notice was issued, was not undertaken and independently vitiated the notice; a later circular could not retrospectively cure that defect. However, admitted delayed filing of ST-3 returns remained an independent procedural default, and the separate penalty for delayed filing was upheld.

Marketed information technology software recorded on media is goods under Article 366(12) of the Constitution, and its sale is a deemed sale excluded from the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994. Failure to establish conditions concerning valuation, duties or invoice declarations under Notification No. 11/2016-ST does not convert an otherwise sale-of-goods transaction into a taxable service. Accordingly, service tax, consequential interest and penalty relating to packaged software sales were set aside. Late fees for failure to file service tax returns within the prescribed period after registration remained enforceable under the applicable return-filing provisions.

Road-construction works performed for the Public Works Department for general public utility fall within the exemption for such works under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Form 26AS receipts alone do not establish service-tax liability: the taxing authority must independently verify the nature of the underlying activity, consider available exemptions and supporting records, and prove that the receipts constitute taxable consideration. A demand based solely on third-party Form 26AS data, without such enquiry, is unsustainable; related interest and penalties also cannot stand.

Service-tax adjudication of composite works contracts requires determination of the taxable service component under Rule 2A, excluding the value of property transferred in goods or applying prescribed valuation percentages where applicable. The assessment must also determine the assessee's status where reverse-charge liability depends on whether it is a partnership firm or company, and decide notification eligibility through reasoned findings. Availability of a statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge concerns the foundational validity of assessment, including valuation provisions, notification-based liability and constitutional limits on taxing goods transfers. The adjudication requires fresh, reasoned determination after hearing the assessee.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge a provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is confined to exceptional cases of patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or manifest lack of jurisdiction where statutory adjudication and appellate remedies are available. A pre-registered predicate case is not indispensable for attachment under the Act where the order refers to FIRs alleging cheating, a scheduled offence, and information has been transmitted to the jurisdictional police. Objections to overseas advertisements and the quantification of proceeds of crime involve disputed facts and must be examined through the statutory process.

Closure reports filed by an investigating agency must be finally considered and decided by the Trial Court before which they are pending, rather than by the High Court. A final order of a Special Court, whether resulting in conviction, acquittal or complete discharge, does not by itself obstruct further investigation or trial, and statutory remedies remain available to the parties. The pending closure report is to be decided within two months, while proceedings concerning concluded Special Court matters remain subject to the earlier directions without further interference.

Restoration of corporate debtor assets improperly dealt with during the CIRP moratorium may be directed under Sections 14 and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code without establishing fraudulent or wrongful trading under Section 66. Sections 14 and 17 protect the insolvency estate by prohibiting asset dealings and placing management with the resolution professional, while Section 60(5), read with Rule 11, supports consequential restoration orders. The stated basis includes sale of mortgaged property during moratorium despite refusal of permission and unexplained withdrawals. Action under Section 74 is described as infructuous following its omission with effect from 26 May 2026.

Related-party import values derived through undisclosed funding discounts were rejected, requiring redetermination under deductive-value principles through the residual method where comparable unrelated imports were unavailable. Only import-time discounts were deductible; retrospective or contingent discounts and embedded warranty costs were excluded, while customs duty, brokerage and fees were deductible without separately adding freight and insurance to a fully delivered price. SRFR products could receive corresponding regular-product discounts plus the SRFR discount, and CLCP could not replace statutory MRP for assessment. SAD exemption was unavailable, and extended limitation applied for non-disclosure; however, interest and penalties were confined to the BCD component. Customs-duty deduction was upheld subject to verification of the deducted quantum.

For customs valuation, the price actually paid by the subsequent importer under its direct contract with the overseas supplier is the transaction value where the parties are unrelated and price is the sole consideration. The original importer neither honoured the letter of credit nor took delivery, so its contract did not result in a completed sale or payment. As the subsequent importer paid the renegotiated price, obtained title and clearance, and no additional consideration or basis to reject the declared value existed, the declared price is to be accepted as the assessable value. The transaction-value regime applicable to the import could not be displaced by the earlier deemed-value approach.

Social Welfare Surcharge is not payable on imports made against MEIS or SEIS duty credit scrips where Basic Customs Duty is fully exempt under the applicable customs exemption notifications. As the surcharge is calculated as a percentage of aggregate customs duties payable, it is nil where the aggregate customs duty is nil due to exemption. It cannot be computed on a notional Basic Customs Duty. This position applies to exemptions under Notifications No. 24/2015-Customs and 25/2015-Customs, with consequential refund relief available for surcharge paid.

Extra Duty Deposit collected in related-party imports pending final assessment or valuation verification is a security, not a statutory customs duty levy. It may be appropriated only where final assessment establishes an additional duty liability. If the declared transaction value is accepted and no further duty is payable, the basis for retaining the deposit ends. The limitation applicable to refunds of customs duty does not govern return of the deposit, so its refund after final assessment is not time-barred.

Classification and duty consequences of imported sorbitol under the Advance Authorisation Scheme require fresh adjudication where import documents reflected a different tariff heading due to an admitted supplier error. Sorbitol was claimed under Chapter 2905 for use in providing moisture to paste, while certain documents showed Heading 382460. The claimed fulfilment of export obligation and cited decisions concerning departmental challenge to goods imported under the scheme must be considered. The classification and consequential duty dispute is remitted for reconsideration after considering the cited decisions and further submissions.

SAFTA preferential-duty entitlement remains available where an undisputed, valid Certificate of Origin confirms that goods were wholly produced or obtained in the exporting State and the prescribed origin-verification procedure has not been followed. A purported relinquishment of that claim, obtained amid customs detention, demurrage and urgent clearance requirements, does not constitute voluntary relinquishment or prevent challenge to reassessment. Denial of the preference consequently cannot support differential duty or interest. Where examination reveals no discrepancy in quality, classification or valuation, goods are not seized, and no misdeclaration or fraud is established, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty lack a sustainable basis.

Truthful baggage declaration under Section 77 is a condition for detention and later return or re-export under the special passenger-baggage regime in Section 80. Section 125 provides a general discretionary redemption power for confiscated prohibited goods on payment of fine, but does not create an independent right to re-export or override the declaration and detention requirements. Permitting re-export of undeclared gold under Section 125 would defeat the safeguards in Sections 77 and 80. Where the passenger crossed the Green Channel without declaring the gold or seeking detention, re-export could not be granted; revisional correction of an erroneous re-export direction was within the revisional power.

Confirmation of attachment of bank funds as alleged benami property could not rest on an incomplete investigation. The material did not establish that the appellant supplied demonetised currency to the alleged benamidar companies, while their actual control, incorporation, shareholding, bank operations, management and third-party dealings remained unverified. The appellant's bullion-sale explanation also required verification because stock registers, VAT returns and supporting sale documentation were not produced. The attachment confirmation was therefore unsustainable on the existing record, and the matter was remanded for comprehensive re-investigation.