CENVAT credit exclusively attributable to trading activity was treated as inadmissible and subject to re-quantification under the prescribed trading formula, while proportionate credit for rented premises used to provide taxable services was considered admissible. The Members differed on whether the extended limitation period applied to reversal of trading-related credit: one view relied on the Supreme Court-approved position, while the other treated the issue as interpretational, with disclosed records and conflicting authorities precluding extended limitation and penalties. They also differed on the relevance of the doctrine of demurrer. The disputed questions were referred for resolution through a Third Member mechanism.

Time-share arrangements granting only contractual accommodation rights, without shareholding, voting, management or genuine membership privileges, fall outside Club or Association Service. Customers described contractually as members do not become company members unless recognised under company law and recorded in the register of members. The later introduction of Short Term Accommodation Service supports the view that time-share accommodation was not taxable under the earlier club-service entry. Where tax and interest for other taxable services are paid before a show-cause notice and fraud, collusion or wilful suppression is not established, Section 73(3) protects against further proceedings and penalties. Penalties for suppression-based defaults are unsustainable where the dispute is interpretational and transactions are regularly recorded.

Service tax cannot be demanded under Section 73 on job-work activity that amounts to manufacture merely because an amount was collected as service tax; Section 73A requires deposit of the collection but does not create a taxable service. Reimbursable labour expenses received before the valuation amendment, including wages and statutory contributions, were not includible in taxable value, and erroneous self-assessment on some invoices did not validate further demands. Claimed unreflected and excess tax payments require record verification and consequential recalculation. An investigation deposit cannot be appropriated where the show-cause notice contained no demand or appropriation proposal and the relevant period was time-barred; the deposit must be refunded with interest according to law.

Show cause notices identifying imported service categories, aggregate foreign-currency expenditure and tax computation remain valid where the assessee could identify transactions and provide service-wise replies; detailed adjudication findings do not exceed the notices' scope. Extended limitation cannot apply without pleaded facts showing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax, particularly after an earlier audit-based notice and where secondment involves legal interpretation; demands beyond the normal period are excluded. Employee secondment from overseas entities constitutes receipt of manpower recruitment or supply service, but service tax liability survives only within the normal limitation period. Remaining service-tax liabilities require fresh reasoned determination after considering the assessee's evidence and relevant legal authorities.

Renting residential dwellings for use as residence falls within the service-tax exclusion under Section 66D(m) of the Finance Act, 1994. Lease evidence established residential use for the first three properties, consistent with acceptance of the same lease terms for a later period. The fourth property was also leased for residential use by employees. All four properties therefore met the statutory condition, making the related service-tax demand, interest and penalty unsustainable.

Works contract services for repair and painting of shops operated by governmental authorities were treated as exempt where agricultural-produce marketing was connected with agriculture and agricultural extension, a Panchayat function under Article 243G. The exemption could be claimed before the Tribunal even if not raised before lower authorities. Extended limitation could not support service-tax demands where the dispute concerned notification interpretation, regular ST-3 returns were filed, and no fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax was established; related interest and penalties were consequently unsustainable. Rental receipts remained eligible for threshold exemption because exempt receipts were excluded from taxable-value computation.

Copyrighted software licences permitting pre-installation and sublicensing before 16.05.2008 fall outside Intellectual Property Right Service where copyright is excluded and no separate intellectual property right recognised under Indian law is identified. The later introduction of a specific levy for commercial exploitation of information technology software supports non-taxability under the earlier entry. Extended limitation requires suppression with intent to evade; prior departmental disclosure and a bona fide taxability dispute do not satisfy that standard. Revenue neutrality, where reverse-charge tax would be available as Cenvat credit for dutiable manufacture, further negates intent to evade. The service-tax demand, interest and penalties therefore do not survive.

Goods Transport Agency classification depends on whether carriage documents contain the essential particulars of a consignment note, not on whether they carry that title. Bills evidencing transportation may qualify, and recipient certificates confirming GTA services and reverse-charge tax payment support that classification. Service-tax turnover cannot be determined solely from Form 26AS or income-tax records without verifying books, invoices, and underlying transactions. Where ST-3 returns were regularly filed and relevant information was already available, similar facts cannot establish suppression to invoke the extended limitation period. Consequently, the disputed service-tax demands, interest, and penalties were unsustainable.

Retention of seized materials and cash, and continuation of freezing orders over bank and demat accounts, were justified under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The company was involved in collecting investor funds through false assurances of high returns, while the appellant's status as majority shareholder and authorised signatory, and the company's operation from his residential address, supported his involvement. Resignation as director before the stated crime period did not displace that connection. The appellants failed to establish an independent lawful source for the funds, shares, and other property. Where direct proceeds of crime are not fully traceable, equivalent-value property may be proceeded against, including property acquired before the crime period.

Money-laundering proceedings may continue after compromise-based quashing of an individual scheduled-offence FIR unless the quashing conclusively establishes that no proceeds of crime existed. A compromise does not by itself negate alleged criminal proceeds, particularly where the investigation concerns connected FIRs and a wider alleged fraud. The anti-money-laundering bail conditions apply to property derived directly or indirectly from scheduled criminal activity and are not confined to the amount alleged in a single predicate FIR. Bail parity depends on materially comparable roles and circumstances. Prima facie evidence of control over conversion entities, financial dealings, use of dummy directors, and flight-risk indicators may prevent satisfaction of both ordinary bail considerations and the statutory twin conditions.

Interference with a High Court's interim arrangement was not warranted where the arrangement was balanced and adequately protected the interests of all parties. The merits remained reserved for determination in pending writ proceedings, and no view was expressed on those merits. The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of without disturbing the interim order.

Section 37A(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act permits seizure of Indian property equivalent in value to foreign exchange, foreign security or overseas property suspected to have been held in contravention of Section 4. At the seizure-confirmation stage, material need only establish a prima facie case, with final adjudication remaining separate. Tally data, emails, witness statements, a token-based cash-delivery mechanism, identified intermediaries and matching overseas bank deposits supported a prima facie inference of unauthorised fund transfers from India to Dubai. The overseas company's separate legal personality and an Income-tax Act settlement did not preclude FEMA seizure proceedings. Refusal to confirm seizure was therefore unsustainable.

Distribution under a resolution plan may allocate amounts among secured financial creditors pro rata to their admitted claims, irrespective of the value of their individual security interests. Section 30(2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code protects a dissenting financial creditor's minimum entitlement, while Section 30(4) leaves allocation among creditor classes and sub-classes to the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom. Where the distribution mechanism receives the requisite approval and a dissenting secured creditor receives more than its liquidation-value entitlement, it cannot claim a higher payout solely based on its security interest.

Belated creditor claims in the corporate insolvency resolution process are examined in the context of a challenge to an approved resolution plan. The subject concerns whether a creditor may pursue a claim after delay once the insolvency resolution process has progressed to approval of the plan, and the resulting effect on the finality of the resolution framework. The material identifies the interaction between late claims, creditor participation, and challenges to approved plans, without setting out the underlying legal reasoning or detailed factual basis.

Section 9 insolvency limitation runs separately from the date each operational debt becomes due and payable and default occurs. Continued subsistence of an EPC contract does not create a continuing cause of action for accrued defaults, and creditor-issued legal notices cannot extend limitation without the debtor's written acknowledgment. Consequently, an insolvency application filed more than three years after default is time-barred. Contractual milestone payments for goods and works qualify as operational debt, while unadjudicated suspension, idling and demobilisation damages do not. An EPC contract does not end merely through suspension or efflux of time where termination remains elective and no supervening impossibility exists. A genuine pre-existing dispute requires contemporaneous evidence; silence until the insolvency application does not establish one.

Trading while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information attracts the prohibition under Regulation 4(1) of the 2015 PIT Regulations, unless the trader establishes a recognised or analogous exonerating circumstance. The stated corporate purpose of a sale, use of proceeds, absence of profit, and reliance on the predecessor regulatory regime do not displace the presumption where possession and trading are admitted. Loss averted through insider trading may be disgorged as part of directions for contravention, and code-of-conduct penalties may be sustained. The insider-trading penalty imposed on one respondent was reduced as excessive after applying the statutory factors, while market-access restraints, disgorgement, and other penalties were reinstated.

Registration of a partnership firm was established through the Registrar of Firms' memorandum and certified Form VIII, removing the bar on instituting a suit under the Indian Partnership Act. However, recovery based on individual unpaid invoices was time-barred because the claim was not founded on a running account, and the relevant communication acknowledged and paid only specified invoices while disputing others. Winding-up proceedings did not suspend or extend limitation for an independent civil recovery action. Consequently, the firm could validly institute the suit, but no monetary recovery was available for the time-barred invoice claims.

Section 28(11) of the Customs Act validates jurisdiction for customs notices issued by empowered officers, while the Commissioner's SEZ jurisdiction may extend to central-excise powers under applicable notifications. Duty-free SEZ clearances based on fraudulent, invalid, unregistered or unsupported advance-licence arrangements fail to satisfy exemption conditions. Earlier assessment of bills of entry does not prevent duty recovery where fraud and diversion of goods are established; extended limitation may then apply under customs and central-excise law. Sorting, stripping, cutting and segregating imported mixed scrap into commercially distinct ferrous and non-ferrous scrap constitutes manufacture. Fraudulent diversion can also sustain confiscation consequences and separate penalties on an involved partnership firm and active partner.

Use of forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices for nil-duty import clearance renders the documents void from inception and constitutes a positive misstatement. Fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression supporting extended-period duty recovery also satisfy the conditions for mandatory penalty equal to duty under Section 114A where the importer fails to establish reasonable due diligence. The statutory provisos allow reduction of that penalty to 25% if the prescribed payments are made within 30 days of communication of the order; this concession applies where timely compliance is established and uncontested.

Transaction value for declared brass scrap cannot be enhanced under the identical-goods valuation method without particulars or documentary evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. Tariff coverage and applicable specifications did not exclude the imported tubes from brass scrap merely because of their length or uniformity, while the departmental assessment conflicted with expert findings on serviceability. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for misdeclaration require reliable proof that the goods were serviceable pipes rather than rejected or discarded scrap. Unsupported visual inspection cannot displace contrary expert material; consequently, the differential-duty demand and related confiscatory and penal consequences were unsustainable.