Export-rebate rules require exporters to choose, shipping-bill-wise at the time of export, between the Schedule-rate route and the document-based route. The document-based route is available only where the documented rebate exceeds the Schedule rebate by the prescribed 20% differential; claims below that threshold are ineligible. Failure of a document-based claim does not permit post-export substitution of Schedule-rate rebate where the electronic shipping bill lacked the required declaration and remains unamended. Refund proceedings cannot reopen self-assessment. Beneficial construction cannot override unambiguous substantive eligibility conditions. Omission of shipping-bill-wise calculations does not breach natural justice without demonstrable prejudice.

Air-ticket booking and sale, undertaken as mere trading without airline or IATA commission and without additional service elements, does not independently constitute taxable tour operator service. Where no material shows that current transactions differ from previously examined activities, the ticket value or margin is not includible in the taxable value of tour operator service. Service tax remains payable only on the assessee's other taxable activities, not on amounts arising from such air-ticket trading.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate intent to evade tax; audit detection or short-payment alone is insufficient. Where those elements are absent, recovery beyond the normal limitation period and related penalties cannot be sustained. Service tax and interest paid before issuance of a show cause notice must be appropriated against the corresponding liability. Although limitation does not extinguish the underlying tax liability, it bars enforcement of a time-barred recovery claim, and voluntary payment does not revive recovery of any unpaid balance beyond limitation.

Taxable-service classification for tool-management activities must be tested against the charging entry in force when supplied; a later expansion of Business Support Service cannot apply retrospectively, and a demand cannot be sustained under a classification absent from the show-cause notice. Capital goods removed as such may trigger CENVAT-credit reversal, but the export-related reversal demand was treated as revenue-neutral. Extended limitation and penalty require independent proof of suppression; audit detection or an interpretational dispute alone is insufficient, so the related interest and penal consequences did not survive.

Foreign-group secondment arrangements are taxable under reverse charge where contractual terms retain the foreign entity's substantive employment nexus, even if the Indian entity pays salaries, directs daily work and receives personnel without a mark-up. Temporary assignments preserving foreign employment, salary reference, social-security, pension and termination arrangements amount to foreign manpower supply before 1 July 2012 and taxable services thereafter. Reverse-charge liability remains payable in cash despite revenue neutrality. However, an interpretative dispute and absence of deliberate suppression prevent use of the extended limitation period and penalties; recovery is confined to the normal period, excluding time-barred pre-July 2012 liability, subject to verification and re-quantification.

Breach of natural justice can permit writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite an available appellate remedy, where the affected party was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond. A quasi-judicial authority must consider and decide a request for additional time to produce material before drawing an adverse inference from its non-production. Proceeding without addressing a pending extension request, while relying on the absence of the requested material, undermines the opportunity of hearing and may invalidate the resulting determination.

Women accused of money laundering fall within the first proviso to Section 45(1), which exempts them from the twin bail conditions and places their bail applications under the ordinary bail jurisdiction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Prolonged pre-trial custody, a set-aside cognizance order, a lengthy prosecution complaint with numerous witnesses, pending scheduled-offence investigations, and prior attachment of assets may support regular bail where trial is unlikely to begin or conclude soon. The bail assessment remains without prejudice to the merits of the allegations.

Statutory savings under Section 49 of FEMA and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve FERA offences, accrued penal liabilities, penalties and related proceedings after FERA's repeal. FEMA's appellate provision supplies the forum without changing the penal character of saved FERA adjudications. Original Side revenue-appeal procedures apply to civil FEMA contraventions rather than saved FERA penal proceedings. Appeals challenging penalties for saved FERA contraventions are therefore maintainable in criminal appellate jurisdiction, and the preliminary objection to maintainability fails.

Delayed-payment interest for raw materials supplied during CIRP and liquidation requires a contractual or otherwise binding basis. Where invoices contain no interest stipulation, no separate agreement imposes interest, and a private association circular is non-binding, no additional interest claim arises. Acceptance without objection of the audited amount, coupled with an undertaking that payment constituted full and final settlement with no further proceedings, estops the operational creditor from pursuing further claims. Unsupported allegations of financial duress do not displace that undertaking.

Reopening a finalised valuation is barred by res judicata where valuation objections, including alleged mathematical errors and asset-base reassessment, were previously determined in appellate proceedings and the Supreme Court declined interference. Failure to use available opportunities before the registered valuer and Tribunal cannot justify a fresh valuation after final determination. Liberty to seek further directions for implementing the original order is confined to execution and does not reopen the valuation mechanism. The doctrine of merger does not permit re-agitation of settled matters; renewed challenges undermine finality of litigation and constitute abuse of process.

Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act permits the Central Government to assign an SFIO investigation in public interest where its opinion rests on relevant and demonstrable circumstances. Judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and does not permit reassessment of the adequacy of material unless the action is arbitrary, relies on irrelevant material, or shows non-application of mind. Quashing an FIR after settlement with certain homebuyers did not negate broader allegations of false loan documents and fund siphoning. The recorded investigation scope concerning transactions, money trail, diversion of funds, and beneficiaries supported the order's validity and excluded judicial interference.

The proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes Tribunal appellate jurisdiction over Commissioner (Appeals) orders concerning goods imported or exported as passenger baggage. This exclusion turns on the mode and category of import, not on whether the goods were bona fide, duty-free eligible, declared, or liable to confiscation. Gold recovered from an arriving passenger remains baggage under Section 77 despite allegations of smuggling. Appeals concerning such baggage-related orders must therefore be pursued by revision before the Revisional Authority under Section 129DD, rather than before the Tribunal.

Timely customs appeals filed without the mandatory first-appellate pre-deposit contain a curable procedural defect. Section 129E bars entertainment, rather than presentation, of an appeal without deposit; notice of the deficiency and an opportunity of hearing are required before dismissal. Final appellate determination may be appropriate without remand where demands have no independent basis beyond refund-review orders already set aside or recalled. Recovery notices for erroneous refunds may be issued under Section 28 while refund review proceedings are pending, including to protect limitation, but their enforceability remains consequential on the refund outcome. Demands founded solely on overturned refund-review orders cannot survive once refund entitlement has attained finality.

Proof of service of an Order-in-Original is necessary to compute limitation; where no earlier service is established and a copy is supplied through the RTI process, an appeal filed thereafter is timely. For unmarked gold carried on a domestic journey, Section 123 of the Customs Act shifts the burden only after reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled. Foreign origin must be established, and an uncorroborated statement retracted within days cannot alone support confiscation or penalty. A domestic passenger is not subject to the baggage-declaration requirement applicable to international passengers, leaving the statutory conditions for confiscation and penal liability unfulfilled.

AIFTA preferential Basic Customs Duty depends on the prescribed regional value-content threshold, and a Certificate of Origin issued by the competent Thai authority certifying compliance cannot be disregarded without a genuine challenge or corroborative evidence. Domestic DGFT wastage norms for Indian silver-jewellery manufacturers do not apply to goods manufactured abroad and cannot support recomputation of regional value content. Denial of preferential treatment on assumptions or presumptions undermines the related valuation basis; declared-value enhancement, differential-duty demands, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties consequentially lack support.

Preferential certificates of origin require verification within the prescribed six-month period under the applicable Rules of Origin. Extended limitation for recovery of short-paid customs duty requires evidence of the importer's collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or knowledge of certificate defects. An alert concerning non-corresponding goods, or verification emails not disclosed in the show-cause process, does not establish certificate invalidity and conflicts with principles of natural justice. Where imported goods have been cleared and are unavailable, confiscation and redemption fine require an independently sustainable basis; they cannot rest on an unsustainable duty demand or alleged exemption misuse.

Section 24(4)(a)(i) permits provisional attachment only of property previously attached under Section 24(3); attachment of other property requires recourse to Section 24(4)(b)(i). Failure to cite, or citation of an incorrect, clause under Section 2(9) does not invalidate action where the stated facts otherwise disclose a benami transaction. Material obtained in income-tax proceedings may be relied upon, particularly where additional evidence exists. A benami allegation under Section 2(9)(A) requires proof that the alleged beneficial owner funded the purchase consideration and that the property was held for that person's benefit. Earlier funding without a demonstrated nexus to the purchase does not satisfy that burden, supporting refusal to confirm attachment.

Benami status under Section 2(9)(A) requires consideration from a person other than the ostensible holder and property held for that person's benefit. Corroborated statements identifying beneficial owners, later transfers to their family members, unexplained reduction in transfer value, and involvement of persons connected with a beneficial owner may support that finding. Absence of bank records showing funding by the registered holder and unsupported claims of agricultural income, ancestral-land sale proceeds, or other sources weaken assertions of independent ownership. An unexplained retraction of a sworn statement may not displace corroborative evidence. Restrictions on transfer of Scheduled Caste land may also support an inference that the registered holder's name was used to circumvent statutory restrictions, justifying confirmation of provisional attachment.

Reassessment based on investigation information requires the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind. A substantial mismatch between the alleged escaped income in the recorded reasons and the loss ultimately disallowed indicates borrowed satisfaction, rendering the reopening invalid. For share transactions alleged to be penny-stock accommodation entries, contract notes, bank and broker records, demat statements, and investment records can discharge the taxpayer's evidentiary burden where trades occurred through a registered broker on the stock exchange. In the absence of identified defects in that evidence, a general allegation of penny-stock dealings cannot justify disallowing a short-term capital loss.

Belated furnishing of the Form 10B audit report by a registered charitable trust does not, by itself, defeat substantive eligibility for exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). Where the report is available during appellate proceedings, the filing requirement is procedural and directory despite delayed furnishing after return processing. Exemption should therefore be granted rather than denied solely for technical delay in furnishing the audit report.