Refund of an ad hoc amount deposited as security under protest is sought together with interest at 6% or another appropriate rate. The writ petition was closed and disposed of, while preserving liberty to seek relief concerning interest and the pending assessment and reassessment proceedings. The substantive issues therefore concern recovery of a protested security deposit, entitlement to interest, and the continuing effect of unresolved assessment and reassessment proceedings.

Rechargeable lanterns, emergency lamps and study lamps with inbuilt rechargeable batteries are classifiable as portable electric lamps under Tariff Heading 8513 1090, rather than lighting fittings under Heading 9405 2010, where AC mains connection only recharges the battery. Disclosure of reclassification in departmental correspondence and monthly returns prevents a finding of suppression in an interpretative classification dispute; consequently, the extended limitation period cannot support demand, interest or penalty before February 2011. Differential duty and consequential interest remain payable after February 2011 because the revised classification applies, except demand already set aside for May to September 2012. Penalties are unsustainable absent suppression.

Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person dealt with goods while knowing that they were liable to confiscation. Distributors cannot be penalised for a manufacturer's alleged excise-duty default without evidence of their ownership or control of the manufacturer, or knowledge of the duty non-payment and consequent confiscability of the goods. Distributors and subsequent purchasers have no legal duty to verify whether the manufacturer properly paid central excise duty, as primary duty liability rests with the manufacturer. Penalties imposed on the distributors were therefore unsustainable.

Statutory interest on a service-tax refund accrues under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, as applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, when the refundable amount remains unpaid for three months after receipt of the original Section 11B refund application. The deeming provision for refunds granted through an appellate or court order does not defer the start of interest. A later communication that merely continues or reminds the authorities of the original claim is not a fresh refund application. Interest was therefore payable from expiry of three months after the original application until actual refund.

Service tax paid by mistake of law on potable-water pipeline work for a public-welfare project lacks the character of duty, so restrictive refund limitations do not govern restitution. Interest under Section 11BB accrues automatically three months after the original refund application; later implementation documents do not create a fresh claim. Rule 41 permits procedural directions needed to implement a final Tribunal order, and such directions are not appealable under Section 35G. Where money was withheld after a mistaken payment rather than a duty refund, the statutory notified rate need not cap compensatory interest, supporting interest at 9% for prolonged withholding.

Language-translation services do not fall within Business Support Services merely because they are supplied to organisational clients. The residual expression "other transaction processing" in section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 must be interpreted in the context of the specifically listed business-support activities. Translating documents between languages is an independent service, rather than outsourced business support or transaction processing. Consequently, such services are not liable to service tax under the Business Support Services category.

Cenvat credit on construction-related input services is admissible where a commercial complex is constructed for subsequent taxable renting of immovable property. Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 covers services used by an output service provider, and the construction services have a sufficient nexus with the taxable renting service generated from the completed premises. The building's status as immovable property does not sever that nexus, and a one-to-one correlation between each input service and the output service is unnecessary. Consequently, denial and recovery of such credit, with related interest and penalties, are unsustainable.

Extended limitation for service-tax demands requires suppression of material facts. Service-tax registration, payment of tax on commission receipts, filing of ST-3 returns, and recording reimbursement particulars in profit and loss accounts indicate disclosure rather than suppression. Pending litigation over the taxability of reimbursements further negates a basis for alleging deliberate non-disclosure. Consequently, invoking the extended period is unsustainable where the relevant reimbursement details were available from statutory returns and accounts, rendering the demand time-barred.

Free home delivery of ready-to-eat food is treated as outdoor catering for the period before July 2012 and as a declared service thereafter, because delivery to the customer's requested location and time contains a significant service element. Service tax liability therefore applies within the normal limitation period. Extended limitation and consequential penalty do not apply where the taxpayer was registered, filed statutory returns, paid service tax, and the relevant facts emerged from maintained records, absent evidence of deliberate suppression intended to evade tax.

NSDC-approved training-partner exemption under paragraph 9A(iv) requires the service provider itself to be an NSDC-approved training partner providing services in relation to specified programmes; an authorised learning centre serving such a partner, without direct NSDC approval or tripartite authorisation, does not qualify. Education forming part of a university degree curriculum leading to a legally recognised qualification remains exempt under Section 66D(l)(ii) even when delivered through distance learning by a non-university provider. Extended limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade; absent these elements, only non-exempt skill-development services within the normal limitation period remain taxable.

Cum-tax treatment applies where service tax was unpaid and no evidence shows that it was separately recovered from service recipients. Consideration for taxable services must then be treated as inclusive of tax, requiring recomputation of tax liability, interest and mandatory penalty on a cum-tax basis. For 2017-18, contractual amounts may form the basis of a best-judgment service-tax determination where the assessee has not furnished income-tax returns, balance sheets or alternative figures showing services rendered and consideration received. That contractual-value basis remains valid, but the resulting liability must be recalculated after extending cum-tax benefit.

Extended limitation and penalties require evidence of conscious, deliberate suppression or misstatement intended to evade service tax. A governmental lessor's bona fide understanding of taxability, without positive evidence of mala fide intent, does not justify extended-period demands or penal action; related extended-period demands and penalties are consequently unsustainable. Vacant land was excluded from taxable renting of immovable property before 1 July 2010, but leasing or licensing vacant land for construction of business or commercial structures became taxable thereafter. A one-time lease premium or salami constitutes consideration for leasing immovable property and forms part of the taxable value, unlike recurring rent only.

Discretionary writ relief under Article 226 may be declined where a litigant relies on altered or unreliable material to explain delay in filing a statutory appeal. An undated medical certificate contained an insertion in its neat copy that was absent from the original, indicating an attempt to mislead the Court. The clean-hands requirement governs invocation of writ jurisdiction, and rejection of the delayed statutory appeal was therefore not disturbed.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may be confirmed on prima facie material showing a person's involvement in receiving, handling, layering or concealing proceeds of crime; final criminal liability remains for trial. An unsubstantiated loan explanation, later inclusion in the ECIR, absence of an initial direct money trail, or reliance partly on a co-accused's statement does not defeat attachment where independent electronic, documentary and circumstantial material supports the laundering nexus. Where directly derived proceeds are unavailable, untraceable, laundered or held outside India, property of equivalent value may be attached, including property acquired before the criminal activity.

Money-laundering proceedings require alleged proceeds of crime to be linked to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence attributable to the person concerned. Where predicate proceedings against that person are quashed entirely because the investigating agency lacked jurisdiction, and the quashing remains operative, there is no subsisting predicate offence or corresponding proceeds-of-crime nexus. The Enforcement Directorate cannot independently preserve the predicate prosecution or rely on proceedings against other accused to establish the missing individual nexus. Proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act therefore cannot continue against that person.

Prolonged custody exceeding one year may, in an appropriate money-laundering prosecution, outweigh the statutory twin conditions governing bail. Serious allegations of impersonation, forgery and extortion, and material insufficient to satisfy the usual bail restrictions, do not preclude consideration of mitigating factors. Bail in the predicate-offence proceedings, pending investigation, and reliance on material that may fall outside the predicate offence can support release. Any grant of bail should include safeguards to secure attendance, protect witnesses and preserve the progressing trial.

Penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is subject to a maximum limit but must be fixed through reasonable, judicial and reasoned discretion proportionate to the contravention. Retaining the original penalty after excluding two remittance forms already adjudicated and recognising RBI write-off of another, without explaining the unchanged quantum, failed that standard. The penalty for non-realisation of export proceeds was therefore set aside as unreasoned and disproportionate and replaced with a lower penalty.

Continuing failure by a corporate debtor to deliver possession or refund amounts may constitute a subsisting default for limitation purposes under a financial creditor's Section 7 insolvency application. Where a revival scheme acknowledges the creditor's claim, that acknowledgment supports extension of limitation despite the three-year period ordinarily applicable from default. An unworkable revival scheme that has been set aside, and pending winding-up proceedings, do not independently bar Section 7 proceedings; insolvency resolution may continue where debt and default are established.

Accused persons already on bail must ordinarily receive summons to appear before a transferee Special Court before coercive process is used. Transfer of a complaint to the Special Court does not by itself justify immediate issuance of an arrest warrant where the accused have had no opportunity to appear before that court. Lawful coercive measures may be adopted only subsequently, if necessary to secure attendance. An arrest warrant issued without prior service of summons in these circumstances is illegal and liable to be set aside.

Bail assessment in an alleged gold-smuggling prosecution requires each accused to be assessed only for gold recovered from that person's possession. The aggregate value of capsules recovered from different persons cannot be attributed to every accused to determine punishment, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not permit such aggregation. Extended custody, absence of any further request for investigative custody, sufficient opportunity to identify alleged organisers, and the applicant's local residence and employment supported release on conditions designed to protect the investigation and trial.