Cenvat credit on telephone services remains available where invoices are issued in the head office's name, despite the head office not being registered as an Input Service Distributor, if the assessee received and used the services. Non-registration is treated as a procedural irregularity during the relevant period where proportionate credit distribution was not required and the lapse caused neither undue benefit nor revenue loss. Credit cannot be denied solely because the invoices name an unregistered head office.

Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, payment of the differential duty determined in Form SVLDRS-3 was established through the relevant declarations and bank statement and remained undisputed. Where issuance of a discharge certificate requires procedural verification despite such payment, the declaration requires manual examination and processing. The Commissioner must manually examine and process the request for issuance of the discharge certificate within four weeks.

Cenvat credit is admissible for structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen demonstrably used within the factory to manufacture, repair or maintain capital goods and machinery, rather than to construct sheds, buildings, foundations or support structures. Chartered Engineer certificates substantiating this end-use support eligibility, and the exclusion for construction-related structural materials does not apply. Credit recorded in RG23A records and disclosed through ER-1 returns, amid divergent views on eligibility, reflects a bona fide belief and does not establish suppression. The extended limitation period is therefore unavailable, rendering the demand, consequential interest and penalty unsustainable.

Excise valuation of body-built vehicles includes the 10% addition embedded in the chassis value determined under Rule 8, because that amount forms part of the intermediate chassis cost used in the completed vehicle. The exclusion for anticipated post-manufacture sale profit and post-clearance expenses does not permit exclusion of this embedded addition. Extended limitation for duty recovery requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, wilful suppression, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Where the Department already knows the material valuation facts, an assessee's omission does not constitute wilful suppression; recovery beyond the normal limitation period is therefore barred.

Pre-deposit requirements did not apply to an appeal filed before the mandatory 7.5% regime took effect. Where proceedings returned for a second round after remand and the required deposit had already been made in the original appellate proceedings, the first appellate authority should decide the appeal on merits rather than reconsider pre-deposit. Rejection solely for alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit was unsustainable, requiring merits adjudication without re-examination of the deposit requirement.

Small-service-provider exemption for FY 2013-2014 applied because aggregate taxable-service value in the preceding financial year did not exceed the prescribed threshold. Nil-payment Form 26AS for FY 2012-2013 reasonably established nil preceding-year taxable-service turnover, particularly as receipts were determined using Form 26AS. As taxable-service value in FY 2013-2014 was below the applicable threshold, the service-tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Service-tax demands for Works Contract Service and Goods Transport Agency service require a reasoned reconciliation of taxable value, statutory returns, books of account, payment challans and CENVAT credit records; discrepancies between balance-sheet figures and ST-3 returns alone do not establish short-payment. Composite contracts involving transfer of property in goods and services require assessment under Works Contract Service after its introduction. Reverse-charge liability for GTA service does not dispense with verification of payments, appropriations, adjustments and recoverable balance. Extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; audit discrepancies alone are insufficient. Failure to meet these requirements renders the demand, consequential interest and penalties unsustainable.

Composite catering arrangements qualify for the relevant service-tax exemption when assessed by their overall commercial character; beverages and refreshments do not by themselves negate a substantial and satisfying meal. Composite contracts may contain separate sale and service elements, so service tax cannot extend to the value of food and beverages transferred as goods where VAT has been paid without identifying the taxable service component. Extended limitation is unavailable where registered taxpayers disclosed agreements, invoices, returns and VAT records, and the dispute concerns notification interpretation without suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade. Consequently, no service-tax liability, interest or penalties survive.

Consultancy, guidance and coordination support supplied directly to an overseas client on the supplier's own account do not constitute intermediary services merely because they assist the client's dealings with Indian Railways. Intermediary status requires arranging or facilitating a distinct principal supply between two other parties, involving at least three parties. Where the consultant neither acts as a broker or go-between nor arranges such supply, the general place-of-provision rule applies based on the recipient's location. The consultancy services were therefore provided outside the taxable territory and were not liable to service tax.

Works-contract classification under the Finance Act, 1994 requires proof that the service provider transferred property in goods while executing the relevant contract. A separately executed erection, commissioning and installation contract remained a service-only contract because no such transfer was established; materials were supplied free by the recipient, and VAT paid under a separate supply contract did not prove transfer under the service contract. Composition-scheme abatement was therefore unavailable on the service-contract consideration. Materials supplied free of cost by the recipient were not transferred by the service provider and were excluded from taxable value.

Composite construction contracts involving transfer of property in goods cannot be taxed as construction services for the period before 1 July 2012. Under the post-2012 negative-list regime, developer construction for buyers before a valid completion certificate is taxable as works contract service. An unreliable completion certificate does not exclude the activity from tax. Extended limitation and penalties may apply where service tax is collected without registration or payment, taxable collections are omitted, and returns are filed late, establishing deliberate suppression and intent to evade tax.

A discharge certificate issued under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme conclusively settles the declared matter and period under the Finance Act, 2019. Following acceptance of the declaration and payment of the determined amount, further duty, interest or penalty liability for the covered dispute is barred, and Revenue proceedings challenging that settlement do not survive. Extended limitation cannot be invoked where earlier show-cause notices demonstrate departmental knowledge of the assessee's accounting method, insurance-charge collection and service-tax position. Such prior knowledge negates suppression of facts, restricting any demand to the normal limitation period.

Returned advances received towards sale of plots were not consideration for a taxable service because they related to sale of immovable property and were refunded when the proposed construction was not viable. Such receipts fall outside the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994, so service tax was not payable on them. Where service tax and interest on construction-related receipts were paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, no further notice was required to demand the paid amount, and penalty was not sustainable. The levy on refunded plot-sale advances and the penalty were annulled, while the pre-notice tax and interest payment remained accepted.

Service tax on corporate guarantees requires provision of a taxable service for consideration. Where an enterprise furnishes corporate guarantees to associated enterprises without charging commission, fees, interest, or any other consideration, no taxable value arises. A notional value derived from market rates applicable to bank guarantees cannot be treated as consideration for service tax purposes. Authorities concerning corporate guarantees supported by actual commission or other consideration do not apply where the guarantees are gratuitous. Corporate guarantees furnished without consideration are therefore not liable to service tax, and the demand was dropped.

Shared rent recovered from associate entities for residential premises used by common employees or directors does not attract service tax under renting of immovable property where the recipient is neither the owner nor a sublessor. Residential character was supported by utility bills and lease arrangements, while no material established use for commerce or business, a necessary condition for taxability. The recoveries represented only proportionate rent contributions from associate entities. The disputed levy and retrospective amendment also supported a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable. Accordingly, shared rent for premises not used for commerce or business was treated as not liable to service tax.

Corporate guarantees issued for subsidiaries or associates without charging commission or interest do not attract service tax under Banking and Other Financial Services. Taxability requires a service provider, recipient, taxable service and consideration; where no consideration flows to the guarantor, the essential element of a taxable service is absent. Corporate guarantees were not specifically covered by that service category, and valuation provisions cannot create or deem consideration where none exists. Non-monetary benefits relevant to valuation cannot establish consideration. Consequently, service-tax demands, interest and penalties relating to such gratuitous corporate guarantees are unsustainable.

Extended limitation for a service-tax demand depends on proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade, rather than mere non-payment or non-disclosure. Pantry-car operations conducted under an IRCTC licence may be characterised as outdoor catering where contractual obligations extend beyond selling pre-packed food; however, taxability also requires an established contractual basis, identifiable service recipient and consideration. Divergent views arose on whether the operator's disclosures during departmental enquiry negated suppression and whether the necessary elements of the alleged taxable service were proved. The dispute was referred for determination by a Third Member.

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme benefit cannot be denied solely because the departmental payment record reflects the CIN date one day after the claimed payment date. Payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3 supports entitlement to the scheme benefit where the discrepancy is a minor procedural delay. Declarations may be manually examined and processed for issuance of the discharge certificate, with the request requiring manual processing within four weeks.

Accounting Standards and illustrative indicators cannot override statutory definitions of an associate company or related party. Genuine real-estate transactions, non-registration of MoUs, accounting-treatment differences, group affiliation and transaction values do not alone establish control, significant influence, artificial profit inflation or a fraudulent securities-market scheme. Consolidation and related-party disclosures are not required where statutory criteria are unmet. Fraudulent and unfair trade practices require established facts demonstrating deception, market impact or other relevant misconduct, rather than inferences from group association or financial reporting differences. Proceedings initiated long after the underlying disclosures and acts, without reasonable cause, are treated as delayed. The majority conclusion rejected the alleged financial misrepresentation, disclosure breaches and consequential liability.

Conditional votes cast "for, with modification" cannot be treated as unconditional statutory assent to a revival scheme unless the legal effect of the attached modifications is determined, particularly where they affect contractual or financial rights. Under Sections 391 to 393, the required majority must approve the actual arrangement presented for sanction. Stakeholders must receive adequate material to make an informed decision, and the scheme must be just, fair and reasonable for the affected class. Numerical support alone does not satisfy these safeguards where the sanctioned arrangement, individual objections, material disclosures or affected contractual rights have not been substantively examined.