Bill-to-Ship-to transactions separate invoicing and commercial ownership from physical delivery. Under Customs law, importer identification depends on ownership, import rights, Bill of Entry filing and customs obligations, while valuation, origin, classification and supporting documents require careful review. Under GST law, the directing intermediate buyer is deemed to receive goods for Place of Supply purposes and may claim Input Tax Credit subject to statutory conditions, even where delivery is made directly to the final customer. Accurate invoices, e-way bill details, transport records and consistent contractual documentation are essential.

SARFAESI challenges to bank-recovery measures should ordinarily be pursued through the efficacious statutory remedy before the competent forum. Writ jurisdiction should not bypass the specialised legislative mechanism, particularly where disputed factual questions may arise. A direct writ challenge to SARFAESI proceedings is therefore not maintainable when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available.

Clandestine manufacture and clearance cannot be established solely from mismatches among ER-1, ER-4, ER-6 and trial-balance figures or estimated input-output ratios. Reliable corroboration, such as evidence of excess inputs, electricity, labour, transport, buyers, cash transactions or unaccounted sale proceeds, is required; without it, the related duty demand is unsustainable. Undervaluation likewise cannot rest only on differences between auto-generated ER-4 sale values and ER-1 clearance values. Where records reconcile the figures and no evidence proves consideration beyond invoice values, undervaluation and the consequential duty demand fail.

Clandestine manufacture, removal and undervaluation cannot be established solely from mismatches in ER-1, ER-4 and ER-6 returns, trial balance figures, or estimated input-output ratios. Cogent corroboration, such as evidence of excess raw-material procurement or consumption, electricity use, labour, transport, buyers, sale proceeds, or unaccounted transactions, is required; reconciliations and a Chartered Accountant's certificate may explain discrepancies. Auto-generated ER-4 inventory and production values do not by themselves prove actual sale value or differential consideration. Extended limitation cannot rest on suppression where the relevant returns and accounts were disclosed and the same facts were already known through earlier proceedings. Duty demands on these grounds are unsustainable.

CENVAT credit reversed under protest pursuant to a show-cause notice is refundable where the underlying demand has been annulled as time-barred and that determination has attained finality. The reversal represents credit not payable because no liability survives after the extended limitation period is held unavailable. The principle denying refund of voluntarily paid duty against a time-barred but otherwise legally due demand does not apply where the demand itself has been set aside. Refund of the reversed CENVAT credit is therefore available.

Adjournments cannot be granted beyond the statutory maximum of three where repeated requests are made without adequate justification. Continued absence and mechanical adjournment requests led to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The statutory limit restricts further postponement after three adjournments, requiring parties to prosecute matters diligently.

Composite construction contracts involving transfer of property in goods and services could not be taxed as Construction of Complex Service, which applies only to pure service contracts. Works Contract Service provided the statutory mechanism for taxing composite contracts by excluding the value of goods. Service-tax demands proposed under Construction of Complex Service could not be sustained by reclassifying the activity under a different taxable category without notice to the assessee. Re-adjudication also had to comply with binding remand directions on classification. The confirmed demands on composite construction activities were therefore unsustainable and set aside.

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.