A review petition repeating grounds and reliefs already considered in earlier miscellaneous applications is not maintainable. Where those applications were dismissed after hearing both sides, and the earlier order expressly confined its effect to the case's peculiar facts, a renewed request for identical relief is misconceived and lacks merit. The review petition was dismissed as defective and on merits.

CENVAT credit was available for business-related input services, including C&F agency services used beyond the factory gate, because they fell within the inclusive definition of input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Services used by a manufacturer for its business remain eligible unless specifically covered by an exclusion. As the disputed services were not shown to fall within any exclusion category, denial and recovery of credit under Rule 14 were not sustainable.

Captively consumed shop-floor equipment, including trolleys, lifting tackles, trailers, cabinets, workbenches, racks and tables, qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. where it is used in or in relation to manufacture, is classifiable under Chapter 94, and is not within an excluded category. An operative prior determination on the identical issue must be followed under judicial discipline. The denial of captive-consumption exemption therefore could not sustain the central excise duty demand. The eight-day delay in filing the appeal also fell within the condonable period before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Central excise duty cannot be demanded by comparing the Sanchor unit's ER-1 assessable value with sales in consolidated financial statements that also include the Mumbai unit. The reconciliation showed inter-unit consignment transactions and established that the Sanchor unit's ER-1 reported sales exceeded the sales reflected in the financial statements. No unreconciled difference in assessable value therefore remained. The alleged short reporting in the ER-1 return could not sustain the duty demand, and no consequential penalty was imposable.

Service-tax refund is not barred by unjust enrichment where the contractual consideration is inclusive of tax and no separate tax amount is recoverable from the service recipient, because the service provider bears the tax incidence. The same principle applies where service tax is separately shown in invoices but the recipient has not paid that amount; supporting records and a chartered accountant's certificate may establish that the burden was not passed on. Refund of tax paid on non-taxable services is available where the claimant proves that it retained the tax burden.

CENVAT credit is described as admissible for steel, cement, welding electrodes and gases used before 07.07.2009 to fabricate foundations, platforms, supports, conveyor structures, galleries, pipelines, chimneys and related structures required for installing and operating capital goods. Embedding those structures in earth does not negate their direct or indirect use in relation to manufacture. The later exclusion of such materials from credit eligibility is treated as prospective rather than clarificatory or retrospective, and therefore does not apply to credit taken before its effective date.

Extended limitation for an excise-duty demand cannot be invoked merely because the department later relies on records already made available during audit. The audit deficiency memo was based on the assessee's records, and their availability did not establish suppression or other conduct required to justify the extended period. The demand issued by invoking extended limitation was therefore time-barred and set aside in favour of the assessee.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery cannot rest merely on audit-based scrutiny or discrepancies between financial statements and self-assessed returns. Where an earlier notice had addressed identical alleged short payment, a subsequent notice could not again invoke the extended period without establishing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax; the demand was therefore time-barred. On merits, goods supplied under separate invoices were not consideration for business auxiliary service, residential letting was not taxable, and turnover reconciliation established no additional liability for supply of tangible goods. The confirmed tax, interest and penalties could not survive.

Developmental and composite works, including horticulture, landscaping, beautification, road laying and paving, are distinguished from maintenance or repair because they create or improve assets rather than preserve existing assets. Composite material-and-labour contracts cannot be artificially split for taxation under Maintenance or Repair Service without segregating taxable and non-taxable elements. Material values may be excluded subject to documentary verification, while qualifying road-related services receive the stated exemption and retrospective relief. Extended limitation and related penalties require fraud, collusion, wilful suppression or intent to evade tax; classification, valuation or exemption disputes alone do not establish those conditions.

Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 restricts credit on supplementary invoices only where additional service tax has become recoverable from the service provider due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intentional contravention. Recoverability requires proceedings and confirmation of a service-tax demand. Voluntary payment of tax, interest and penalty after investigation, without a show-cause notice or adjudicated demand against the provider, does not meet that condition. As supplementary invoices are prescribed credit documents, Cenvat credit remains admissible in those circumstances.

Service tax on royalty paid under reverse charge for mining rights depends on the mining lease terms and the date the right was granted. Before 1 April 2016, Government services generally fell within the negative list; following amendment, Government services supplied to business entities became taxable. Without the mining lease agreements, the factual basis to determine the applicable regime was unavailable. The demand order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after examination of the leases under the applicable law.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation was unavailable where investigation material alleged that the petitioner facilitated a sub-contract to an entity connected with his son and that proceeds were transferred to family members. The absence of direct credit to the petitioner's account was not determinative, as further investigation was required to trace the money trail and pre-arrest bail does not permit conclusive assessment of evidence. The statutory twin conditions for bail could not be satisfied. Medical records also did not show a continuing serious condition, emergency, or urgent intervention warranting protection from arrest.

Inherent jurisdiction under PMLA is discussed alongside the availability of revisional remedies, mandatory pre-cognizance hearing requirements in complaint proceedings, limits on judicial remand beyond fifteen days, PMLA bail conditions, and allegations of transnational conspiracy. The text reports that the cognizance process must restart after affording the petitioner a pre-cognizance hearing, while custody and bail are to be determined under the applicable statutory procedure. It further records dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, with liberty to seek regular bail before the High Court.

A clerical rectification that only corrects the pronouncement date and does not alter substantive findings does not restart the appellate limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A Section 9 application is governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 137; balance confirmations extend time only where they are proved, unequivocal acknowledgments made before limitation expires. Unproved confirmations containing inconsistent liability figures did not establish a valid acknowledgment. Correspondence raising reconciliation, set-off and ledger objections before the demand notice established a genuine pre-existing dispute, independently preventing insolvency proceedings. The insolvency process could not be invoked for a stale and disputed operational debt.

Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits the Adjudicating Authority to protect a pre-existing access right where post-CIRP obstruction directly affects inspection, saleability and value realisation of liquidation assets. Access recorded in non-agricultural permission and openly used for about two decades supported a subsisting prescriptive right of way under the Indian Easements Act; an alternative route over third-party land was not legally secure. The obstruction was therefore connected with and prejudicial to liquidation, and measures keeping the access unobstructed were sustained. A dissent considered that proof of a contested prescriptive easement required civil-court adjudication with leave under the Code.

Discounted invoices acquired by a bank under a TReDS reverse-factoring arrangement remain operational debt where the bank pays suppliers for pre-existing trade receivables and does not disburse funds to the corporate debtor for the time value of money. Assignment changes the payee, not the nature of the underlying trade payable, so the bank stands in the suppliers' position as an operational creditor. An alleged error in recording a concession does not affect the result where classification is independently determined on merits. A creditor that delays filing its claim in the directed operational-creditor category need not be included in an approved plan, particularly after full implementation, payments, and dissolution of the monitoring committee.

A creditor that was informed its claim had been classified as contingent during the corporate insolvency resolution process had to challenge that classification before the Adjudicating Authority. Seeking modification of an interim stay before another forum did not replace the need for a timely challenge within the insolvency process. Once the resolution plan was approved, fully implemented, and the insolvency proceeding closed, it could not be disturbed by claims that had not been timely pursued. The post-implementation challenge to the resolution plan was therefore not maintainable.

An approved resolution plan binds all creditors, including those who did not file claims, and extinguishes claims that are not included in the plan. Continuing execution proceedings based on a pre-approval money decree would undermine the insolvency resolution framework. Deposit of the decretal amount is not invariably required to obtain a stay of a money decree where exceptional circumstances exist. The binding effect of the approved resolution plan and the statutory consequences of Section 31 constitute such circumstances, supporting a stay of the decree's operation, execution and implementation pending final disposal of the appeal.

Criminal liability of a statutory auditor for account-related defaults requires the statutory status or specific management charge contemplated by the relevant provisions; an auditor outside those categories cannot be prosecuted for non-compliance concerning the company's accounts. False-statement liability requires a knowingly material false statement or omission, and cannot rest merely on failure to report accounting-standard non-compliance. Penal liability for audit-reporting failures further requires a pleaded and supportable wilful default; qualifications in audit reports and alleged inadequate enquiries may indicate lack of due care but do not establish wilfulness. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable on the pleaded allegations.

Police assistance for eviction or securing possession cannot be used while a purchaser's application for vacant possession remains pending before the Company Court, unless the Company Judge directs otherwise. The pending application must receive expeditious consideration. The directions preserve the Company Court's control over possession and prevent police-assisted eviction without its express order.