Commercial provision of advertising space, including hoarding space on billboards and public places, was taxable under the pre-1 July 2012 service-tax regime. Renting immovable property, including vacant land used commercially as market places, was also taxable; municipal leasing to traders for consideration was a commercial activity rather than a sovereign or mandatory statutory function. Tax recovery was restricted to the normal limitation period because extended limitation requires evidence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax, and mere failure to declare or pay tax was insufficient. Penalty was consequently reduced proportionately.

Sweeping and cleaning manpower supplied to a Governmental Authority qualifies as exempt sanitation conservancy services where the authority is constituted under State law and performs municipal functions. The remaining taxable turnover may qualify for the small service provider exemption. Regular filing of ST-3 returns and a bona fide belief in exemption do not support invoking the extended limitation period; consequently, the service-tax demand and related penalties are unsustainable.

Interest on refunds of amounts paid by mistake of fact is payable at 12% per annum where the payment constitutes a deposit rather than tax and no statutory interest rate governs such refunds. The limitation framework for tax refunds does not apply to recovery of a mistaken deposit. Entitlement to interest continues from the date of deposit until the refund is paid; payment of the principal refund does not extinguish the right to interest for the period of retention.

Frozen funds alleged to constitute proceeds of crime could not be released under an interim arrangement to discharge salary and statutory liabilities of another company identified as the primary accused. The respondent's asserted loan arrangement did not justify using funds held by it for obligations that were not its own. The interim direction permitting such use of the frozen funds was set aside.

PMLA bail requirements under the twin conditions in section 45, the definition of proceeds of crime, the presumption under section 24(b), the need for a predicate offence before PMLA proceedings, prima facie assessment on broad probabilities at the bail stage, and disclosure under section 66 are identified as the principal issues. Delay was condoned, notice was issued, and dasti service was permitted. No determination of the substantive PMLA issues is recorded.

Front-running allegations involving use of non-public information to trade ahead of large mutual-fund orders fall within the regulatory framework for fraudulent or unfair trade practices under securities law. The statutory bar on cognizance requires prosecution for offences under that framework to proceed on a complaint by SEBI, and the special mechanism prevails over general criminal-law process. An FIR founded essentially on the securities-law violation cannot bypass that requirement and was quashed in its existing form. Any criminal action for the alleged front-running offence must be initiated through SEBI's prescribed statutory procedure. Whether the facts disclose an independent general criminal-law offence remained undecided.

Review jurisdiction requires an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground warranting reconsideration of the impugned order. No such apparent error or merit for reconsideration was established. The review petition was therefore dismissed.

Compound and standardised vegetable extracts remain classifiable under heading 1302 where added substances serve as carriers, diluents, standardising media or antioxidants and do not confer the character of a food preparation, medicament or another specifically covered product. The millet and wheat extracts supplied the product's botanical identity and essential character, while sunflower seed oil acted as a carrier and standardising medium and rosemary extract as an antioxidant. Classification depends on the goods' condition at importation as bulk raw material, not their later use in nutraceutical tablets. The product is therefore classifiable as an other vegetable extract under tariff item 1302 19 39, rather than as a residual food preparation under heading 2106.

Foreign-origin gold seized on a reasonable belief of smuggling attracts the statutory burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The possessor and claimant-owner must establish lawful import; foreign markings, transport through an Angadia firm and absence of import evidence supported confiscation. Domestic purchase invoices that cannot be correlated with lawful import do not discharge this burden. The gold was therefore liable to confiscation, subject to redemption on payment of fine. Handling and transporting goods whose lawful source was not established also justified penalty, which remained enforceable along with confiscation and redemption consequences.

Reasonable belief and foreign markings may justify an initial seizure of notified gold but do not establish smuggling for final confiscation. Verifiable evidence of domestic procurement, including supplier invoices, payment records and GST documentation, shifts the evidentiary burden to the department to investigate and rebut that evidence; delay in producing records is insufficient by itself to reject them. Retracted and disputed statements require independent corroboration. A connected proceeding may weaken such statements without operating as strict res judicata. Indian currency is confiscable as sale proceeds only on proof of a proximate, identifiable nexus with known smuggled goods. Without proof of smuggling, confiscation and penalties fail.

Social Welfare Surcharge is not payable where specified imports are wholly exempt from Basic Customs Duty under the relevant customs exemption notifications and the notional duty amount is debited through MEIS/SEIS duty-credit scrips. The surcharge is computed with reference to customs duties levied and collected under the Customs Act; where exempted Basic Customs Duty is nil, no statutory base exists for the surcharge. Debit in duty-credit scrips operates as a scheme mechanism rather than actual collection of Basic Customs Duty. Circular No. 03/2022-CUS is clarificatory and beneficial and applies to pending disputes for earlier periods. Absence of a separate surcharge exemption does not independently create surcharge liability.

Section 123 of the Customs Act applies only where seizure rests on objectively established reasonable belief that goods were smuggled. Unmarked gold seized in a town area, without intrinsic foreign-origin indicators, is not shown to be smuggled merely by quantity or absence of documents at interception, particularly where GST-compliant invoices, stock records and tax filings support domestic procurement. Statements recorded under Section 108 require statutory safeguards, including examination and effective cross-examination, and need independent corroboration before supporting confiscation or penalties. Currency cannot be confiscated as sale proceeds without cogent evidence linking it to smuggling. On these principles, confiscation, penalties and retention of currency were unsustainable.

Concessional customs-duty exemption for Malaysian imports remained available where 37 of 38 Certificates of Origin were neither cancelled nor revoked and had been verified and accepted at clearance; a later communication without particulars of contravention or evidence of collusion could not invalidate them. The declared transaction value could not be rejected merely by reference to contemporary imports, absent evidence of payments beyond invoice value or documentary grounds for rejection. As misdeclaration of origin and undervaluation were not established, suppression with intent to evade duty was not proved and no penalty was imposable.

Limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act is jurisdictional: adjudication after expiry of the applicable period is invalid. The phrase "where it is possible to do so" required completion within one year unless impracticable and did not permit proceedings to remain pending indefinitely; adjudication nearly fourteen years after the notice, unsupported by material for Call Book retention, was unreasonable and arbitrary. The 2018 amendment could not revive a proceeding already time-barred under the earlier law; even if applied from commencement, the adjudication exceeded the amended timeline. The delayed customs adjudication was therefore unsustainable and contrary to Article 14.

Customs detention of imported goods cannot replace statutory seizure under the Customs Act, 1962 or bypass the procedural safeguards and time limits applicable to seized goods. Pending verification or a classification dispute does not justify indefinite retention where no lawful seizure has been made. Revenue interests may instead be protected through proportionate conditions for release, including an indemnity bond for the goods' value and a bank guarantee for 25% of differential duty, subject to confirmation that the goods are fit for human consumption. Assessment or adjudication may continue in accordance with law after release.

Detention of imported goods under Customs control, where clearance cannot occur without permission, is treated as seizure for computing the six-month notice period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. A formal seizure memo is a later procedural step and does not reset the limitation period. Any extension under the proviso must be granted and communicated before expiry of the original six-month period calculated from detention. An extension made after that period is without jurisdiction, requiring return of the seized goods under Section 110(2).

Refund of excess customs duty is not barred by unjust enrichment where the importer establishes that duty incidence was not passed on. A Chartered Accountant certificate, Bills of Entry and sales invoices showing bunker oil was sold below its import value demonstrate that the importer did not recover the import cost or duty. Recording duty as an expense in the profit and loss account does not alone prove that the duty burden was passed to buyers. Once the importer produces this evidence, the evidentiary burden shifts to Revenue; without rebuttal material, refund remains payable.

Currency seized as evidence in an investigation into fabricated customs-scheme claims, illegal gratification and hawala transactions falls within the category of a "thing" under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, rather than confiscable goods under Section 110(1), unless the currency itself is the subject of a customs violation. The notice-and-return requirement under Section 110(2) therefore does not apply. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not direct release while connected economic-offence investigations remain pending, as premature release could impede effective investigation. The currency may be retained as evidentiary material and kept in an interest-bearing deposit with a nationalised bank until investigation concludes.

Provisional release of goods seized under customs law is governed by the statutory mechanism requiring bond, security and any necessary conditions pending adjudication. Where investigation is complete and a show-cause notice has been issued, the competent Adjudicating Authority must decide the pending release application expeditiously. Invoice-related disputes and valuation must be determined within that authority's adjudicatory jurisdiction through a reasoned order in accordance with law. The same process applies to the connected seized vehicle.

Confiscation of Indian currency as sale proceeds of smuggled goods under the Customs Act was addressed alongside the evidentiary value of statements recorded during customs inquiry. Such statements were treated as substantive evidence, while a subsequent retraction was rejected as an afterthought. Possession of smuggled goods attracted penalty consequences, and the statutory burden required proof that the goods were not smuggled. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court's common order.