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.

Section 123 of the Customs Act places a reverse burden for notified gold only where seizure rests on an objectively founded reasonable belief of smuggling. Suspicion, high purity and generic fineness markings do not by themselves establish foreign origin or unlawful importation, particularly where domestic invoices, supplier confirmation and banking records remain unrebutted. Retracted statements require reliable independent corroboration, and discrepancies in seizure evidence weaken their probative value. Where supplier or Panch witness statements prove disputed facts, denial of cross-examination reduces their evidentiary weight unless statutory conditions permit reliance without it. Confiscation and related penalties require proof of unlawful importation or contravention, together with requisite knowledge for penal liability.

For notified gold, the reverse burden arises only where seizure rests on an objectively sustainable reasonable belief of smuggling; suspicion, generic fineness markings and unverified assertions of foreign origin are insufficient. Credible domestic-procurement evidence, including matching invoices, supplier confirmation, GST particulars and banking payment, may discharge the burden where unrebutted by investigation. Promptly retracted statements require independent corroboration and assessment of voluntariness before supporting confiscation. Where such statements prove disputed material facts, denial of effective cross-examination prejudices the affected party and weakens their evidentiary value. Without proof of unlawful importation, consequential confiscation of related goods and penalties requiring knowledge cannot be sustained.

Presumption of smuggling for seized gold arises only when reasonable belief rests on objective material connecting the particular gold to illicit importation. Re-melted gold found domestically, without foreign markings, a traceable foreign source, or evidence of an illicit import route, does not establish foreign origin. Unexplained inconsistencies between FASTag records and the Panchanama, uncorroborated retracted statements, and denial of cross-examination undermine the evidentiary basis. Pre-existing tax invoices, supplier confirmation, and banking records support domestic acquisition. Confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) was not established, and consequential penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) could not survive.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits exclusion of time spent bona fide pursuing a remedy before a forum believed to have jurisdiction. Time spent in writ and special leave proceedings may therefore be excluded where the challenge was prosecuted honestly, although the appellate remedy lay before the Tribunal. The residual delay may be condoned under Section 5 where sufficiently explained, applying a liberal, justice-oriented approach that favours substantial justice over technical rejection on limitation. Costs may be imposed while condoning the remaining delay.

Written acceptance of an enhanced customs value waives only the requirement for a speaking reassessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act; it does not remove the statutory right to appeal reassessment. Rejecting a declared transaction value requires compliance with Section 14 and Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, including written grounds for doubting that value. Any redetermination must then follow the sequential valuation rules. General references to contemporaneous-import data, without disclosure of comparable data, do not establish voluntary and unconditional abandonment of the right to challenge valuation. Consent or acquiescence cannot override statutory valuation safeguards or appellate rights.

Goods declared in import documentation that accompany or facilitate concealment of undeclared imports are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Where confiscated goods are released on redemption, redemption fine remains applicable but must be proportionate to their declared and assessed value. Unexplained undeclared goods, material misdeclaration of quantity, description or value, and lack of contemporaneous purchase or payment records support penalties for improper importation. Penalty for acts rendering goods liable to confiscation may arise under Section 112(a) without separately proving that the person had reason to believe the goods were confiscable, unlike Section 112(b). Monetary fines and penalties must nevertheless remain proportionate.

Rejection of declared transaction value and redetermination of customs value require material showing an untrue importer declaration; a supplier's bona fide shipment of incorrect goods, without evidence of importer misdeclaration, suppression or intent to evade duty, does not justify enhancement or consequential duty demand. Confiscation and penalty likewise cannot rest solely on the supplier's error. Packaged-commodity labelling declarations may be affixed with permission before home-consumption clearance, making the deficiency curable. Goods lacking mandatory BIS compliance remain subject to re-export where the foreign supplier lacks the required registration; related redemption fine concerning those goods remains unaffected.