Deliberate collection of service tax without remittance constitutes evasion and may support statutory penalties and the extended limitation period. Penalty for delayed payment is a civil consequence; separate proof of mens rea is unnecessary once the statutory default is established. Admissions made during a customs inquiry were treated as substantive evidence where no contemporaneous retraction displaced them. The original penalty determination remained operative. Although housekeeping services were taxable, their assessable value required fresh determination from underlying invoices because no material challenged the invoices or their declared values. Deliberate non-remittance, supported by investigative admissions, established wilful suppression with intent to evade tax and sustained extended-period recovery.

Job-work services qualify for exemption under Notification No. 08/2005-S.T. where goods produced from client-supplied raw materials or semi-finished goods are returned for use in manufacturing finished goods on which appropriate excise duty is payable. The exemption requires that duty be payable, not that the client prove actual payment. Job-work challans and jurisdictional permissions indicating that clients were duty-paying assessees support eligibility. Consequently, absence of evidence of actual excise-duty payment by clients does not defeat the exemption.

SLDC charges and charges for use of transmission networks under short-term and medium-term open access form integral components of electricity transmission and distribution when inseparable from grid scheduling, monitoring, supervision and control. They fall within the Service Tax exclusion for transmission or distribution of electricity; separate tariffs or accounting do not make them independent services under the bundled-services rule. The extended limitation period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention intended to evade tax. Recorded receipts and an interpretative taxability dispute do not establish those conditions, rendering demands beyond the normal period unsustainable.

Cheque-discounting interest separately disclosed falls within the exemption for interest on discounting of bills, bills of exchange or cheques. Ledger classification as Bank Charges cannot alone establish that receipts constitute consideration for a taxable service; transaction-level proof is required. Charges representing exempt discounting interest and actual bank expenses recovered from clients are excluded from taxable value for the relevant period. Where accounting entries were recorded, audited and previously accepted, no wilful suppression or intent to evade is established. The extended limitation period is unavailable, and a suppression-based penalty under Section 78 cannot be sustained.

Disposal of assets furnished as loan security without lender approval may constitute wilful default under RBI Directions. Pending arbitration over the underlying loan transactions does not prevent a separate wilful-defaulter process, particularly where no stay has been granted. A show-cause notice identifying the relevant assets and disclosing supporting material ordinarily permits borrowers to respond before the Identification and Review Committees; judicial intervention before that process is completed is premature. The challenge to the notice was rejected, with two weeks allowed for a reply.

Interim insolvency proceedings concern financial creditors in a class seeking to requisition a CoC agenda and the consequences of suspending an insolvency professional's registration on other assignments. A challenge to an NCLAT interim order was not entertained by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal. The appellate proceedings were listed for a future date, with an expectation of expeditious disposal.

Statutory appellate remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal provides an efficacious forum to challenge SEBI interim directions, including objections to the scope of imposed restrictions. Although the challenge appeared arguable at first glance, no prima facie view was recorded. Writ jurisdiction was not invoked; the petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate appellate forum, while preserving all rights and contentions.

Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract are classifiable as vegetable extracts under Heading 1302, rather than food preparations under Heading 2106. Under Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, classification follows the heading terms and relevant notes. Repeated solvent extraction, concentration, drying, grinding and sieving do not alter the essential character of botanical extracts unless specialised processing demonstrably and selectively enriches or depletes particular constituents. Bulk, single-ingredient extracts requiring further formulation are not finished dietary supplements merely because of their potential nutraceutical use. As neither extract is specifically named under Heading 1302, both fall under residual Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 for other vegetable extracts.

Minimum Import Price restrictions do not apply to goods placed in bonded warehousing solely for re-export where no intended diversion to home consumption is shown. A policy-based minimum price, without evidence of additional consideration, under-invoicing, concealment, or discrepancy, cannot alone displace the declared transaction value. Comparable import data cannot sustain value redetermination once that premise fails. In the absence of deliberate misdeclaration or mala fide undervaluation, goods are not liable to confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty. Such transactions retain their character as bonded warehousing for re-export rather than imports for domestic consumption.

Recovery of customs duty not levied or short-paid may proceed through a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 without prior appellate modification of self-assessment; the assessment-modification requirement applies to refund claims, not recovery. Anti-dumping duty imposed under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 constitutes customs duty and is included in the aggregate value for IGST on imports, so corresponding duty, IGST and interest remain payable. A penalty for contravention must not exceed the statutory maximum in force on the date of import; a later enhanced ceiling cannot apply to earlier imports.

Imported used rails, sleepers, bails and G.I. angles fall under ferrous waste and scrap where their condition at import makes them unfit for original use and suitable only for melting or re-rolling; former identity does not control classification. Declared transaction value may be rejected only on reasonable doubt under Rule 12, followed by sequential valuation methods under Rule 3 with disclosed supporting material and an opportunity to rebut it. Exemption, differential duty, interest, confiscation and appropriation depend on valid classification and valuation. Redemption fine generally requires goods to be available, unless released on bond or undertaking. Customs penalties require proof of statutory ingredients, including person-specific culpable conduct.

Tariff reclassification requires Revenue to establish each proposed entry through disclosed, article-specific evidence applying the General Rules for Interpretation, relevant notes and Explanatory Notes. Generalised conclusions, undisclosed website material, reversal of the burden of proof and disregard of binding appellate precedent undermine a speaking classification determination. Absent proven reclassification, the declared classification and consequential concessional-notification benefit continue; accepted revised classification of other articles remains subject to limitation and quantification. Extended limitation requires pleaded and proved culpable conduct, while a corrigendum cannot introduce fresh charges retrospectively. Incorrect classification alone does not establish confiscation where description and value are undisputed, and unsupported duty demands cannot sustain redemption fine, penalty or interest.

MEIS benefit remains available where an exporter inadvertently marked the Reward declaration as "N" rather than "Y" in EDI shipping bills, provided the error is rectified. Section 149 of the Customs Act and Clauses 5 to 7 of Public Notice No. 30/2023 permit transmission of relevant shipping-bill records from the Customs backend to DGFT. A genuine exporter's substantive entitlement under a beneficial export-incentive scheme should not be defeated by a curable procedural or technological error. The EDI records must be corrected to "Y" and the amended shipping bills transmitted to DGFT to implement the MEIS benefit.

Review jurisdiction permits reconsideration only where an error apparent is established in the challenged order. Examination of the review petitions and supporting grounds disclosed no such error or basis for reconsideration. The review petitions were therefore dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. Delay in filing was condoned, without affecting the rejection of review on merits.

Alleged unaccounted cash consideration on a property sale cannot be sustained solely on a third party's inconsistent statement and WhatsApp chats recovered from that third party, where the registered sale deed records consideration received through banking channels and no buyer inquiry, reconciliation, or independent evidence establishes cash payment. The rebuttable presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C apply against the person from whose possession the material is found, not against a third-party assessee without corroboration. The addition for alleged cash consideration was deleted.

Delay in filing a first appeal may be condoned where the taxpayer diligently pursued rectification of a Section 143(1) intimation and pandemic-related limitation extensions applied. The disputed intimation assessed gross receipts without allowing claimed expenditure, despite timely filing of Form 10BB under Section 139(1). On these stated facts, sufficient cause supported restoration for merits adjudication, with necessary documents and an effective hearing.

Section 54F limits capital-gains relief where the taxpayer owns more than one residential house on transfer of the original asset. A shop-cum-office verified as commercial property is not counted as a residential house for that condition, leaving relief available subject to other statutory requirements. Section 54B permits relief for eligible investment in agricultural land. An urban location alone does not negate land's agricultural character where purchase deeds and verification establish that character; relief is available to the extent of documented eligible investment, with consequential recomputation of income and interest.

Section 50B prescribes a self-contained method for slump-sale capital gains, using the undertaking's net worth as acquisition cost and prescribed fair market value as consideration. Where Form 3CEA, the accountant's report and valuation comply with Rule 11UAE, net worth cannot be reduced to nil through extraneous adjustments. An addition exceeding the amount proposed in the show-cause notice conflicts with natural justice and CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015. The statutory computation of the slump-sale capital loss was therefore sustained.

Revision under Section 263 applies where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Explanation 2(a) treats an order passed without enquiries or verification that should have been undertaken as meeting that condition. A cryptic, non-speaking assessment order that contains no factual particulars of enquiry into transactions, claimed expenses, or declared profit may fail to demonstrate the Assessing Officer's application of mind. Where the record does not establish such enquiry, revisionary jurisdiction is valid, particularly when the revisional authority has examined relevant financial details and submissions.

Purchase additions arising from supplier verification require fresh factual examination where the supplier later clarifies that sales from a unit were omitted and supports that clarification with invoices, payment records, GST material and delivery evidence. The assessee's earlier differing explanation must also be verified. A reasonable opportunity of hearing is required before deciding whether the disputed purchases are allowable. The purchase claim and supplier's clarification therefore require verification before any lawful addition is determined.