Penalty for attempted tax evasion requires sufficient material and a specific finding of intent to evade. Full disclosure of mobile-phone accessories in stock-transfer invoices, despite their being taxed at the rate applicable to mobile phones, does not establish concealment or misdeclaration where classification remains genuinely disputed. Check-post authorities are directed to detecting patent evasion and should not decide disputed questions of classification, taxability or statutory interpretation through summary penalty proceedings. Such bona fide disputes ordinarily require determination by the assessing authority in regular assessment proceedings; penalty orders based solely on alleged evasion are unsustainable.

Coercive recovery against the petitioner was to remain stayed while the partnership firm's statutory appeal against the tax demand remained pending. Although the appeal was stated to be time-barred, recovery protection was considered appropriate until its decision, without examining the demand's merits or the parties' liability. No coercive action could be taken on the recovery letter until the statutory appeal was decided.

Supplies of MS pipes to an associated concern were governed by normal valuation rather than the cost-construction method because no evidence showed flow-back or additional consideration. An earlier determination involving identical supplies to the same associated concern had applied the normal valuation provision and rejected cost-based valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii); Revenue's challenge to that position had also failed. The identical issue and circumstances required the same treatment for the present manufacturing unit. Mere association between buyer and seller did not justify cost-based valuation, rendering the alleged undervaluation demand unsustainable.

Before 01.04.2008, the definition of input service covered services used directly or indirectly for clearance of final products from the place of removal and expressly included outward transportation from that place. Where a manufacturer paid freight for dispatch of final products from its factory premises, service tax on that outward freight qualified for CENVAT credit. The subsequent amendment replacing "from" with "upto" the place of removal did not apply to the earlier period. Accordingly, CENVAT credit was available on service tax paid on qualifying outward freight incurred before the amendment took effect.

Extended limitation cannot be invoked to recover annual differential refund amounts taken as suo motu credit where the credits were disclosed in monthly duty-payment statements and separately communicated to the Department. As the Department did not dispute entitlement to the underlying refunds and possessed all material facts concerning the credits, no suppression, fraud, or mala fide intent to evade duty was established. The notice relying on the extended period was therefore time-barred, and the resulting demand proceedings were unsustainable.

Extended limitation for central excise recovery requires suppression or misstatement; consistent disclosure of Nicotine Sulphate's manufacture and Chapter 29 classification in ER-1 returns does not support its invocation. Nicotine Sulphate is described as a vegetable alkaloid derivative classifiable under CTH 29399900, as the Chapter 29 exception for alkaloids applies despite the general requirement of separate chemical definition. The analysis also questions reliance on delayed third-party sample testing and classification opinions by chemical examiners. Related-party valuation requires evidence meeting the statutory test; a common individual's roles in the supplier and purchaser alone do not establish that relationship or justify cost-based valuation.

Bail in alleged clandestine manufacture and central excise duty evasion depends on individual circumstances rather than the economic-offence label alone. Where the offences carry imprisonment up to five years, are triable by a Magistrate, the complaint has been filed, charges have been framed, co-accused have received bail, and material witnesses are official witnesses, continued detention may not be necessary. Personal liberty and applicable bail safeguards require a case-specific assessment. The applicant was entitled to bail.

Rule 18(1) requires the Tribunal to notify parties of the date and place of hearing. Dispensing with individual adjournment notices through uploaded judicial orders applies only where an order discloses the adjourned date. Where no two-member Bench sat on the scheduled date and no judicial order fixed or uploaded a later date, the non-sitting does not amount to an adjournment under Rule 24. A party is entitled to fresh notice of the next hearing date and need not ascertain it from weekly cause lists. An ex parte order made in these circumstances is without due opportunity of hearing.

Determination of a service's taxability is treated as a question relating to the rate of excise duty for appellate jurisdiction. An appeal from CESTAT on that issue is therefore not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the statutory remedy lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A contrary authority did not address High Court maintainability and provided no basis to depart from the binding Division Bench position.

Revenue-neutral valuation of clearances to job workers was considered in relation to interest liability under Section 11AB and duty determination under Section 11A. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's view that interest need not be levied in the revenue-neutral circumstances and that refund was unavailable because the order-in-original had attained finality. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on the peculiar facts and circumstances, while expressly keeping all questions of law open.

Interconnection usage charges were not subject to service tax for periods before their inclusion within the taxable telecommunication-service definition. Delayed-payment surcharge on telephone bills did not form part of the taxable value of telephone service and therefore did not attract service tax. Public telephone calls from airports and hospitals for which no bills were raised fell within the specified service-tax exemption. Accordingly, no service-tax demand, interest or penalty could be sustained for these categories. The stated principle is that service tax cannot apply to a service not taxable during the relevant period, to amounts outside taxable value, or to services covered by a specific exemption.

Works contract services involving canal soil work and culvert construction connected with irrigation works fall within the service tax exemption for construction-related services provided to Government in relation to canals, dams or other irrigation works under Serial No. 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Departmental certificates and tax records established the irrigation-related nature of the services. Consequently, the services were exempt from service tax, and the related tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Notice pay recovered from an outgoing employee for failing to serve the stipulated notice period is compensatory payment for breach of the employment contract, not consideration for an independently agreed service. The employment-related stipulation remains within the employee-employer relationship, which is excluded from service tax. A declared service requires an independent contractual arrangement and consideration directly linked to an obligation to refrain from, tolerate, or perform an act. Notice pay, liquidated damages and breach penalties do not meet that test. Consequently, notice pay recovered from employees is not exigible to service tax.

SEZ exemption for taxable services supplied to an eligible SEZ unit for authorised operations cannot be denied solely because Form A-2 was not produced. Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the substantive exemption, while Section 51 gives that framework overriding effect; a procedural condition imposed under the Finance Act cannot curtail the statutory benefit where authorised use is undisputed. Service-tax demand, interest and penalty are therefore not sustainable on that ground. Late fee for delayed ST-3 returns must also remain within the statutory ceiling under the Finance Act, 1994, requiring re-quantification of any excess levy.

Service-tax liability depends on the substantive character of a receipt and evidence that it is consideration for a taxable service, rather than accounting classification. Profit distributed to a venture-capital fund unit-holder is distinguished from consideration for fund-management services. Royalty principally for copyright use falls outside Intellectual Property Service where copyright is excluded from the relevant intellectual-property-right definition; incidental trademarks and domain rights do not alter that character. CENVAT credit remains available where taxed input services were received and used for output services despite procedural invoice or address defects. Differences between returns and audited records, without suppression, do not support extended limitation or penalties.

Section 362 CrPC does not prevent the High Court from modifying or revoking conditions in an earlier bail order because a bail order is interlocutory and does not finally dispose of the criminal case. The High Court may use inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, read with its constitutional status as a court of record, where changed circumstances require intervention to prevent injustice. A bail condition requiring a substantial fixed deposit without a prima facie finding of guilt was treated as unreasonably onerous and impermissibly recovery-oriented. In view of stalled proceedings and the absence of an early trial conclusion, the condition was revoked and the deposit with accrued interest was directed to be released.

Maintainability of a writ petition through an authorised political-party representative was recognised because the National Working Committee was the party's highest executive authority. Alternate remedies under the anti-money-laundering framework did not bar writ review of the ECIR initiation and allegedly arbitrary freezing action, particularly where merits required pleadings. Interim protection was nevertheless refused because the freezing order identified substantial transfers to multiple entities whose legality could not be decided at that stage, while other unfrozen accounts remained available and no prima facie case or balance of convenience was shown. The matter was directed to proceed on affidavits.

Review of the refusal to quash money-laundering proceedings at the pre-trial stage was not made out. The review petition had failed to cure procedural defects and was also rejected on merits, leaving the underlying proceedings unaffected.

Bail may be granted where an accused has remained in custody for about one year and two months and pre-charge evidence has not commenced despite an earlier direction to complete it. Although no wilful failure to conclude the evidence was found, substantial efforts were required to advance the proceedings. The prolonged custody warranted intervention, resulting in bail being granted and the refusal of bail being set aside.

Remittances for definite tournament services were treated as current account transactions because the agreement created fixed obligations, and unbudgeted expenditure or instalment payments did not create contingent liabilities. Findings on the dedicated South African account, reimbursements, pouring-rights revenue, EEFC credits, and the authorised dealer's processing were set aside. Liability remained for an EEFC remittance exceeding the recorded service-provider liability and for delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds, with reduced penalties for the latter. The natural-justice challenge failed because the noticees had repeated hearing opportunities, written submissions, and witness cross-examination.