Output-based conversion and packaging of Third Schedule biscuits constituted manufacture, not manpower supply, because consideration depended on packed quantity and the process rendered goods marketable. The activity was consequently covered by the service-tax exclusion for processes amounting to manufacture. Reverse-charge demands for security, GTA and legal services did not arise where security services were provided by a tax-charging body corporate, freight entries included non-GTA expenses or settled audit liabilities, and legal-service invoices concerned consultants rather than advocates. Extended limitation and penalties were unavailable because the dispute was interpretational, based on audited statutory records, and lacked fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression intended to evade tax.

Service tax paid on a contractual advance is refundable without the limitation under Section 11B where the underlying project is terminated before services commence, no consideration is adjusted against performance, and the entire advance is recovered. In those circumstances, the payment does not retain the character of legally payable service tax but constitutes a deposit with the Revenue. The tax incidence must also remain with the assessee. Refund entitlement arises on termination of the contract and recovery of the advance, with consequential relief available.

Bail for an alleged money-laundering offence requires satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions: the prosecution must have an opportunity to oppose bail, and the court must have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Allegations of substantial misappropriation and an investigation statement indicated an alleged connection with proceeds of crime. As the twin conditions were not satisfied, bail was refused.

Money laundering liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires cogent material establishing culpable intent and knowing involvement with proceeds of crime. Uncorroborated co-accused statements alleging peripheral facilitation, without documentary or electronic evidence, a money trail, recovery, attachment, control of funds, participation in the predicate offence, or personal benefit, do not establish the required mens rea. Mere suspicion or an expectation that evidence may emerge at trial cannot sustain prosecution. Proceedings were quashed because the material did not disclose a sustainable money-laundering case against the petitioners.

Bail for money-laundering offences requires recorded satisfaction of the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002: reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Parity with anticipatory bail granted for non-PMLA offences is inapplicable, and cooperation with investigation alone cannot meet these statutory requirements. Bail granted without applying and recording satisfaction of the twin conditions is unsustainable and liable to be cancelled.

Complaint concerning alleged money laundering was to be taken up by the competent department, which undertook to act in accordance with law and communicate developments to the petitioner. No stipulated time limit was prescribed for completing the process, although responsible action was expected. No determination was made on the underlying money-laundering allegations, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation may be refused where investigation material prima facie links the applicant to illegal call-centre operations, alleged proceeds of crime, their layering, and unexplained financial credits. At the pre-arrest bail stage, the relevant inquiry is whether serious allegations and a prima facie case exist, rather than a meticulous assessment of evidence or conclusive acceptance of financial explanations. Repeated non-compliance with summons, incomplete participation, non-appearance despite judicial directions, and being declared a proclaimed person indicate lack of cooperation. The need for effective investigation and custodial interrogation can outweigh pre-arrest protection.

PMLA action requires a subsisting scheduled offence and identifiable proceeds of crime. An ECIR is an internal administrative record rather than an FIR or criminal prosecution, while search, seizure, freezing and preservation measures remain administrative until a prosecution complaint reaches the Special Court. Article 226 review may extend to the jurisdictional basis of those measures where the challenge concerns foundational legality, not merely property-related action within the Adjudicating Authority's remit. Closure of the predicate FIR through acceptance of a cancellation report and dismissal of a protest petition removes the basis for continuing PMLA action unless the predicate investigation is lawfully revived. An ECIR addendum may include another FIR, but must satisfy legality, procedural fairness and a sufficient same-transaction nexus; it cannot arbitrarily substitute an unrelated predicate offence.

PMLA proceedings involved dismissal of a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order, with no interference granted. The petitioner received four weeks to surrender; on surrender within that period, the Trial Court must consider the bail application independently on its merits and in accordance with law. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Homebuyers who invoke arbitration for refund of sale consideration, accept and present refund cheques, and pursue dishonour proceedings abandon their status as continuing allottees for insolvency purposes. Although amounts raised from real-estate allottees ordinarily have the commercial effect of borrowing, financial-creditor status requires a subsisting financial debt and liability owed by the corporate debtor. A refund claim pursued through these steps does not retain the character of a debt owed to a continuing allottee. The principle barring differential treatment of decree-holder allottees does not apply where the claim results from the homebuyer's election to seek refund. Such homebuyers cannot be recognised as financial creditors in that capacity.

Corporate insolvency recovery may proceed alongside depositor-protection proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. The Economic Offences Wing may continue statutory action to protect and redress depositor claims and investigate related offences despite the insolvency process. A liquidator, having assumed the company's management functions, may obtain a complete set of seized investigation materials and pursue recovery of receivables through the available statutory forum. Providing those materials supports recovery without interrupting investigation, while amounts traceable to alleged offences remain subject to lawful action by the Economic Offences Wing.

Regulation 31A validly imposes a regulatory fee as an insolvency resolution process cost for resolution plans approved under Section 31 on or after 1 October 2022. The Board's express power to levy fees for carrying out the Code's purposes, together with its regulation-making power over process costs, supports inclusion of the fee within the residuary category of insolvency resolution process costs. The levy remains a regulatory fee, rather than a tax, where it has a broad nexus with regulatory functions; direct payer-specific quid pro quo is unnecessary. The fee is not excessive, arbitrary, retrospective, colourable, or based on excessive delegation where statutory guidance and legislative oversight apply.

Orders of the National Company Law Tribunal must ordinarily be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked against an NCLT order where no sufficient reason exists to bypass that alternative remedy. High Courts should therefore decline to entertain such writ applications, leaving aggrieved parties to pursue the appropriate remedy before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Maintainability of an appeal against disposal of a SCORES complaint was examined where the appellant sought monetary compensation and regulatory action. The Tribunal treated the monetary claim as a civil dispute outside its jurisdiction and indicated that remedies available through the SCORES mechanism should be pursued where applicable. The Supreme Court found no basis to interfere, dismissed the appeal while preserving any other remedies available in law, and dismissed the review petition because no grounds for review were established.

Import value re-determination must comply with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and rely on comparable contemporaneous imports rather than departmental internal instructions or the highest available value. Comparable lower-value imports require consideration, with the lowest value of similar contemporaneous goods forming the basis for reassessment. Excess quantity and minor thickness variations may attract confiscation where examination identifies a contravention. However, where test results substantially match the declared GSM range and no intent to evade duty is established, redemption fine and penalty should be proportionate to the limited infraction and recalculated using the re-determined assessable value.

Separately imported laptop LCD display panels lacking video-signal converting components fall under heading 8524 as flat panel display modules, rather than the general heading for computer parts. Classification follows the General Rules for Interpretation, the heading terms and Chapter Notes. Chapter Note 7 gives heading 8524 precedence where a display module has a screen but no scaler ICs, decoder ICs or application processors. Presentation as replacement laptop screens does not displace this specific classification. Such panels attract basic customs duty at 15%, and classification under tariff item 84733099 is incorrect.

Classification of imported kitchen exhaust hoods depends on the factual determination whether the hoods incorporate fans. Additional material bearing on that question had not been considered because it was sent to an incorrect email address. The Authority must consider that material and make a fresh determination on whether the imported hoods contain fans, which will govern their classification.

Customs-seized goods remain governed by the special seizure, provisional-release and adjudication framework under the Customs Act, 1962. Sections 110 and 110A regulate seizure and provisional release pending adjudication, while confiscation and penalties fall within the jurisdiction of designated customs officers under Sections 122 and 122A. Where no prior prosecution sanction under Section 137 has been recorded and no criminal court has taken cognizance of a Customs offence, a regular criminal court cannot use its general power under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to grant interim custody of the seized goods. Interim release must therefore proceed under the Customs Act mechanism.

Common adjudication of multiple customs show-cause notices may be declined despite a common investigation where the notices concern distinct subject matters and some have already been adjudicated. Pendency of proceedings seeking common adjudication does not invalidate parallel adjudication unless an order expressly stays or restrains it. Although an alternative statutory remedy does not absolutely bar writ jurisdiction, challenges involving service, hearing, consideration of replies, limitation, and other record-dependent disputed facts should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate forum. Merits of valuation, duty, penalty, limitation, and natural-justice objections remain open before that forum.

Importers authorising customs-clearance agents to use transferable duty-credit scrips remain responsible for duty benefits obtained through manipulated credits when they fail to verify the scrips' source, validity and available balance. Agency acts within authority are attributable to the importer, while bona fide purchaser protection requires good faith and reasonable care; excess electronic credit cannot be transferred beyond the entitlement originally issued. Non-production of original scrips or denial of cross-examination does not breach natural justice where independent electronic and official records establish the facts and no actual prejudice is shown. Penalty for duty short-levy through fraud or suppression may apply despite lack of personal involvement in manipulation, but a separate penalty is excluded where the statutory penalty regime prohibits duplication.