Admission of cheque execution invokes presumptions of consideration and discharge of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless rebutted by cogent evidence. A bare assertion that the cheque was misplaced, unsupported by records or circumstances explaining its loss or possession by the lender, does not displace those presumptions; repayment liability for the friendly loan follows. Delivery of a demand notice at the undisputed correct address, supported by postal tracking, establishes service absent credible contrary material. Territorial jurisdiction exists where part of the cause of action arose through loan collection and cheque presentation. Pendente lite and future simple interest may be granted under the CPC despite no contractual interest agreement, where the rate is not arbitrary.

Compound rubber manufactured by an industrial unit remains eligible for sales-tax exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729/1993 despite clause (h) added by S.R.O. No. 38/1998. Clause (h), which excludes treatment of raw rubber with chemicals to form a rubber compound, substantially mirrors an earlier exclusion. The established characterisation of the manufacturing process treats compound rubber as a finished rubber product rather than raw rubber subjected merely to chemical mixing or comparable processing. The comparable exclusion therefore receives the same construction, preventing clause (h) from curtailing the exemption claim.

CENVAT credit remains admissible for erection, commissioning and installation services used to set up a new cement plant after 1 April 2011 where those services have a direct nexus with manufacturing finished goods. Although the inclusive limb of the input-service definition no longer expressly covered factory set-up, Rule 2(l)'s main clause continued to cover services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture, provided they were not specifically excluded. The omission therefore did not by itself bar credit for services integral to establishing manufacturing operations.

Carbon dioxide generated unavoidably during beer fermentation and subsequently captured for brewing is treated as an incidental by-product, not as goods manufactured for captive consumption or sale. Central excise liability requires manufacture or production of excisable goods, and tariff classification or captive use alone does not establish dutiability; marketability must also be shown. Since beer is a non-excisable final product, incidental CO2 generation does not attract duty on these facts. Consequently, the related duty demand, extended limitation period and penalty cannot survive, particularly where the non-dutiability position supported a bona fide belief.

Clandestine manufacture and removal allegations require tangible, credible corroboration linking unrecorded inputs to unaccounted production and illicit clearances, including evidence of raw-material consumption, production, labour, transport, buyers or sale proceeds. Procedural non-entry of duty-paid inputs without CENVAT credit, isolated reconciliation discrepancies, and unexplained electricity or freight variations do not alone establish such activity. Related-person valuation requires proof of mutuality of interest through reciprocal financial or proprietary interest, fund flow-back, or commercial interdependence. Common management roles or family relationships, without those links, do not establish a related-person relationship for differential-duty purposes.

Cenvat credit supported by photocopies of invoices remains available where loss of the originals is satisfactorily explained and independent verification establishes duty payment, receipt and use of goods, recipient identity, and substantive eligibility. A procedural deficiency in prescribed documentation does not defeat genuine credit absent fraud, manipulation, or duplicate availment. Credit reversed following an audit objection is not conclusively inadmissible; a subsequent refund or re-credit claim requires independent assessment on its merits under the applicable statutory framework. The absence of an earlier appellate order does not itself bar refund of substantively eligible credit.

Excise valuation of outward freight depends on the place of removal: freight is included in assessable value for FOR sales where the buyer's premises are the place of removal, but not for ex-factory sales with freight separately shown. Differential duty must be confined to FOR transactions established by the purchase orders relied on in the show-cause notice; it cannot rest on a presumption that other sales share the same terms. Extended limitation is unavailable where departmental audits examined the records and the issue involved competing interpretations. In those circumstances, suppression with intent to evade duty is not established and penalty under Section 11AC is not attracted.

Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules is subject to the conditions in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, requiring non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, short-payment or erroneous refund of duty before penalty or confiscation can apply. Where suppliers cleared goods after paying applicable excise duty, incorrect or omitted buyer particulars in invoices may constitute a procedural lapse under Rule 11(2), but do not by themselves establish duty evasion or satisfy Rule 25's statutory preconditions. Penalty under Rule 25 therefore does not apply solely because buyer identification in invoices is inaccurate.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for failure to remove defects, including non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements, was sought after an unexplained delay of about five years. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and order, and dismissed the special leave petition.

Rule 5 refunds of accumulated CENVAT credit for exported output services cannot be denied by reassessing the nexus between input services and output services where the availed credit has not been challenged through statutory recovery proceedings under Rule 14 read with the Finance Act. The refund enquiry is confined to compliance with the prescribed conditions and formula. Eligibility under the Rule 5 formula requires a proper factual determination, including consideration of prior findings on identical facts. Invoices, foreign inward remittance certificates and refund calculations must be considered before deciding the remaining documentary and computational requirements.

Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules prescribes the mechanism and formula for refunding accumulated credit attributable to exported output services. Where the original availment of CENVAT credit has not been challenged through a show-cause notice or under Rule 14, its admissibility, including alleged lack of nexus between input and output services or inadequate documentation, cannot be re-examined during Rule 5 refund proceedings. Refund may therefore not be denied on nexus or documentation grounds where no non-compliance with the Rule 5 formula or procedure is alleged.

Transfer of development rights that confers benefits arising from land constitutes transfer of immovable property and falls outside the definition of service; one-time premiums and transfer-related receipts under long-term development leases are therefore not subject to service tax. An urban planning body constituted under State law qualifies as a governmental authority for the relevant exemption framework. Construction of residential complexes remains taxable, but tax is confined to the amount after admissible abatement where land and superstructure values were included and CENVAT credit was reversed. Delayed-payment interest is penal rather than service consideration, and water supply in discharge of public functions is treated as supply of goods. Extended limitation applies to the surviving construction-tax liability where intentional evasion is established.

Healthcare revenue-sharing arrangements between hospitals and consultant doctors do not create a separately taxable Business Support Service where doctors provide professional care and the hospital manages and delivers healthcare services, facilities and follow-up care to patients. The hospital's retained share of patient fees is not consideration separately attributable to infrastructure or support supplied to the doctors. Taxing that share as Business Support Service before 1 July 2012, or as another taxable service thereafter, would conflict with the healthcare-services exemption available to clinical establishments. The retained amount is therefore not liable to service tax.

Pure-agent exclusion of reimbursed expenses from taxable service value requires contractual agreements or other documentary evidence linking the amounts claimed to expenses incurred for clients. The claimant bears the initial burden of proving the factual basis for the exclusion. Where reimbursement is established on evidence, service tax is not chargeable on those reimbursed expenses. The claim requires fresh consideration by the original authority after allowing production of the requisite evidence.

Excess service tax paid by mistake where no taxable liability existed is characterised as a deposit rather than duty or tax lawfully leviable. Consequently, the one-year limitation in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not govern its refund. Article 265 prevents retention of an amount collected without authority of law. Refund remains conditional on disproving unjust enrichment: invoices and a Superintendent's certificate may establish that the amount was not recovered from service recipients. Where the incidence was not passed on, the excess payment is refundable.

Principal-to-principal purchase and resale of cargo space in international freight forwarding is an independent commercial activity. The margin between buy and sell freight rates is trading profit, not consideration for Customs House Agent service, unless it is shown to relate to an identifiable agency service; ancillary customs-clearance work does not change that character. Consequently, freight receipts of that nature fall outside the taxable value of Customs House Agent service. CENVAT credit on documentation charges requires Rule 9-compliant evidence that Service Tax was paid. Receipts without a Service Tax element cannot support credit, so the credit remains recoverable with interest; absence of intent to take irregular credit supports deletion of the related penalty.

Service tax paid under reverse charge on exempt legal services, where the taxable value remains below the threshold, is treated as a deposit rather than tax legally due. An advance received for proposed services but recovered after contract termination, without any service being rendered or consideration retained, does not form turnover for threshold-exemption purposes. Reversal of unutilised CENVAT credit removes the related objection to exemption. As no tax liability arises, the one-year refund limitation under Section 11B does not apply. Refund is also not barred by unjust enrichment where the tax incidence was not passed on and the claimant bore the burden.

Cost allocations and reimbursements among co-venturers under Joint Operating Agreements do not constitute consideration for Manpower Supply Service or Business Support Service where the operator performs its own obligations for the common petroleum enterprise. Proportionate recovery of manpower, administrative and operational expenditure through cash calls remains common-cost sharing, not an independent service transaction, absent a service provider-recipient or contractor-contractee relationship. The extended limitation period cannot apply where the arrangements and agreements were disclosed in statutory records and returns, and fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade Service Tax is not established. Interest and penalties consequently do not survive.

Leasing of dialysis equipment constitutes a taxable declared service where the arrangement does not transfer a legal and exclusive right to use identified goods to the lessee. Article 366(29A)(d) excludes transactions involving transfer of the right to use goods from service tax, whereas hiring or leasing without that transfer remains within Sections 65B(44)(a)(ii) and 66E(f) of the Finance Act, 1994. Owner control through operating specifications, approval requirements, maintenance and insurance obligations, inspection rights, and restrictions on removal prevents a deemed sale. VAT payment does not determine the transaction's character.

Leasing or renting land for business or commerce, including lease premium, salami and ground rent, constitutes a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. After introduction of the negative-list regime, such activity falls within the definition of service and is not excluded by the negative list. Statutory status does not exempt a development authority when it undertakes commercial activities for consideration. Protection for mandatory statutory functions applies only to compulsory statutory levies deposited into the Government treasury; lease-related receipts, sports-complex membership charges and subscription fees are consideration, not statutory levies. Sports-complex membership and subscription services are commercial and taxable.