Assessed VAT refunds must be paid with statutory interest where the assessment determines a refundable amount and payment remains outstanding. Prolonged non-payment, despite an assessed refund, does not justify further time for the Department. Interest on the unpaid refundable amount is governed by section 38(6) of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The taxpayer is entitled to receive the assessed refund together with interest calculated under that provision.

Cenvat credit remains available where departmental verification and contemporaneous purchase and clearance records establish actual receipt, duty payment, and use of inputs in manufacture. Incomplete supplier addresses on invoices are treated as procedural deficiencies that do not defeat substantive entitlement when the underlying transactions and duty-paid nature of inputs are verified. Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, preserves credit where reliable evidence establishes compliance despite invoice defects.

Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules requires the amortised value of tools, dies and moulds, separately sold to customers but subsequently used in manufacture, to be included in the assessable value of the final products. Their full sale value is not includible at once because the tooling is repeatedly used across production. Captive consumption exemption is unavailable where the tooling is separately sold and its value is not absorbed in the final products. Failure to include the amortised value despite adopting that approach for customer-supplied tooling supports invocation of the extended limitation period, with consequential interest and penalty subject to recalculation.

Revenue-neutral inter-unit excise clearances valued under Rule 8 do not sustain a differential duty demand where the receiving manufacturing unit uses the goods as inputs for dutiable finished products and can fully avail CENVAT credit. As the transferor and recipient units belong to the same assessee, any additional duty payable would be correspondingly creditable, eliminating any benefit from the adopted valuation. Disclosure of valuation particulars in ER-1 returns negates suppression of facts and prevents invocation of the extended limitation period. Differential duty for the extended period is therefore time-barred.

Bagasse, as agricultural waste or residue not produced through manufacture under the Central Excise Act, falls outside Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The marketability deeming provision cannot operate without a process amounting to manufacture. Accordingly, Rule 6(3) cannot support demands relating to bagasse-based electricity or press-mud on that premise. Revenue cannot require selection of the Rule 6(3) payment option where proportionate Cenvat credit has been reversed, since such reversal is equivalent to non-availment of credit. Demands for payment, interest and penalty on this basis are unsustainable.

Investigation statements in central excise proceedings require statutory evidentiary safeguards: unless exceptional circumstances apply, the maker must be examined, the statement admitted through a reasoned determination, and cross-examination allowed. Electronic data and computer printouts require prescribed conditions and a certificate identifying the record, device, production method, and operational conditions. Non-compliant statements and electronic material are inadmissible. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance must additionally rest on tangible, cogent, independently corroborated evidence of manufacture, removal, transport, buyers, sale proceeds, capacity, electricity use, or labour where relevant. Without compliant evidence and corroboration, duty, interest, and penalty demands for alleged clandestine removal are unsustainable.

CENVAT credit is admissible for the additional customs duty paid at the concessional rate on imported coal. Additional customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act corresponds to excise duty, and the CENVAT Credit Rules permit credit of that duty. A concessional rate prescribed under a Customs Act public-interest exemption notification continues to represent the relevant excise-duty component for credit purposes. Restrictions applicable to exemptions granted under Central Excise notifications do not apply to additional customs duty paid under the Customs notification. The concessional additional customs duty paid on imported coal therefore remains eligible for CENVAT credit.

Service-tax liability under the reverse-charge mechanism is revenue-neutral where any tax paid would be fully available to the same assessee as CENVAT credit. In those circumstances, the payment creates an equivalent credit entitlement, rendering the service-tax demand unsustainable. A consequential penalty is likewise unsustainable where the underlying demand fails on revenue-neutrality grounds.

Composite works contracts involving both construction and transfer of materials were not taxable under construction of residential complex service before works contract service became taxable on 1 June 2007. The earlier entry neither imposed a charge on the composite transaction nor prescribed a valuation mechanism to separate the service component from the goods component. Abatement notifications could not remedy the absence of a charging provision. Consequently, service tax demands on such pre-1 June 2007 residential-complex works contracts were unsustainable.

Amended Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 covers a public servant obtaining or accepting an undue advantage for self or another through abuse of position or corrupt or illegal means. It corresponds to Section 5(1)(d) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, rather than Section 4-A. Because paragraph 8 of the PMLA Schedule includes amended Section 7, Section 2(2) treats the corresponding J&K provision as a scheduled offence. Criminal activity under that provision can therefore generate proceeds of crime for money-laundering purposes, sustaining Enforcement Directorate jurisdiction to register an ECIR and issue summons.

Humanitarian parole may be warranted where a prisoner's spouse has advanced, undisputed cancer and the prisoner's presence is sought to facilitate treatment. The existence of other family members able to provide care does not by itself justify refusal when the illness is grave. A brief period of parole enables the prisoner to attend to the spouse and support treatment.

Section 13(1) of FEMA imposes civil regulatory penalties once a contravention is established and does not require proof of wilful conduct, intention, or mens rea. For conduct occurring before its omission took effect, section 6(3)(b) continued to govern foreign remittances and foreign investment. Non-compliance includes delayed receipt and share-allotment reporting, allotment of shares to an entity other than the remitter, and deployment of remittances in a restricted real-estate sector. Administrative difficulty, eventual regularisation, and absence of loss do not negate established contraventions. Section 13(2) permits discretionary confiscation alongside monetary penalty. Director liability depends on responsibility for company business, knowledge, and due diligence.

Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot support admission where a corporate debtor raises a plausible, bona fide pre-existing dispute requiring investigation. Disputes over the crystallisation and contractual entitlement to an outcome-based professional fee, the meaning of contractual success, and the effect of pending GST proceedings existed before the statutory demand notice. Rejected invoices and contemporaneous correspondence supported those disputes. The setting aside of the GST order underpinning much of the fee claim, along with unresolved questions concerning the capacity in which services were rendered and the regulatory permissibility of outcome-based fees, meant that no undisputed crystallised operational debt was established.

Pending intervention under Section 60(5) alleging collusive initiation of insolvency proceedings must be determined before final adjudication of a financial creditor's Section 7 petition where the applicant asserts likely prejudice to proprietary interests. Procedural fairness may require prior determination when the corporate debtor's non-participation could affect the applicant's rights in a sugar factory and its assets. The intervention application is to be decided within three months, if still pending, before any final order on the company petition.

Employees' provident-fund and gratuity dues remain outside the liquidation estate and cannot be distributed through the insolvency waterfall. An approved resolution plan must comply with applicable law, and the statutory first charge for provident-fund dues prevails. A successful resolution applicant must discharge provident-fund and gratuity dues in full, including statutory interest payable on provident-fund arrears. Such interest is distinct from damages imposed for default.

Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code imposes a 30-day appeal limitation period and permits condonation for only a further 15 days. Where a tribunal's e-filing system prevents timely bona fide filing through OTP-delivery or backend failures, the unavailable period may be excluded rather than treated as delay attributable to the appellant. The first bona fide filing attempt may be treated as the presentation date, applying actus curiae neminem gravabit and the principle reflected in Order VII Rule 6 CPC. This approach is confined to failures unconnected with negligence, laches, ignorance of law, or appellant fault.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) arises where material and integral facts forming part of the cause of action occur within the court's territorial limits. A Central Government direction to investigate a company's affairs necessarily requires examination of its registered or head office at Ranchi, described as the repository and fulcrum of the investigation. That location supplies part of the cause of action, enabling the writ petition to be entertained and defeating the preliminary objection to maintainability.

Section 128 of the Customs Act confines the Commissioner (Appeals)' jurisdiction to appeals by persons aggrieved by orders of subordinate customs officers. A terminal operator that neither filed nor was joined as a party to an importer's appeal cannot be directed to implement a detention and demurrage waiver certificate or refund demurrage. Customs communications recording a recommended waiver and waiver granted by a CFS do not expand appellate jurisdiction over the non-appellant operator. Such directions exceed the Commissioner (Appeals)' statutory authority.

Declared transaction value remains the primary customs valuation basis under section 14. Rules 3 and 12 permit rejection only where stated reasonable grounds create doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the declared value; any redetermination must then proceed sequentially under Rules 4 to 9. Market inquiries or reverse calculations from retail prices cannot substitute that process. Bank-remitted invoice payments, absent proof of extra consideration or misdeclaration, support the declared value. Differential duty paid for provisional release does not constitute acceptance of enhancement. Without lawful undervaluation, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty lack foundation.

Revocation of a Customs Broker licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires an established regulatory failure or misconduct, not apprehension of future conduct. A valid importer authorisation satisfied the authorisation requirement, while reliance on importer-supplied Bill of Entry and BIS documents did not show lack of due diligence where a brand discrepancy was detectable only on physical examination. Verified IEC, GST, UDYAM and PAN records met KYC obligations. Participation in examination, seizure, search and hearing proceedings negated non-cooperation allegations. No breach of the cited obligations was established, leaving revocation, security forfeiture and penalty without legal basis.