CENVAT credit on imported capital goods is available only to the manufacturer or service provider legally entitled to claim it under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Where a separate corporate entity imports and owns the goods, pays CVD and holds the Bills of Entry, another entity cannot claim that credit merely because of common shareholding, captive consumption, economic integration or revenue neutrality. Credit availed without statutory authority is recoverable under Rule 14 read with Section 11A, with applicable interest. Equal penalty may apply under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC where the relevant facts support it. No statutory mechanism permits cross-entity transfer of such credit.

Mutatis mutandis incorporation of customs-notification conditions into the International Competitive Bidding excise exemption extends only to conditions capable of operating for domestic clearances. Import-specific procedural requirements cannot be imposed mechanically on indigenous manufacturers where the eligible project, actual end use and Project Authority Certificate are undisputed; substantive exemption eligibility therefore remains intact. A duty demand founded solely on exemption denial cannot survive, and payment under protest does not validate it. Interest requires a legally recoverable principal duty liability. Penalties are not attracted where clearances followed prior intimation and certificate production, with no suppression or clandestine removal and only an interpretational dispute.

Reimbursable expenses for the pre-amendment period were excluded from taxable value, and a demand cannot rest solely on differences between accrual-based financial-statement turnover and receipt-based ST-3 turnover without material proving taxable receipts. CENVAT credit computations require reconciliation of opening balances, tax paid on imported services and correct return figures; any surviving excess-credit demand requires fresh verification and is confined to the normal limitation period. Credit is available for business-related professional, housekeeping, security, maintenance and repair services, and for pre-1 April 2011 employee insurance and health check-ups; group-booking expenditure requires evidence of business promotion. Bona fide SEZ-exemption belief, followed by pre-notice payment of tax and interest, constitutes reasonable cause against penalty. Regular filings and departmental audit negate extended limitation and associated penalties.

Construction of residential complexes undertaken by a builder or developer under agreements to sell was treated as self-service before transfer of completed property and was not liable to service tax before 1 July 2010. This position applied whether the arrangement involved a standalone service or a composite works contract. The Explanation extending service-tax coverage to such construction operated prospectively from 1 July 2010. Consequently, residential-complex construction performed before that date remained outside the taxable net.

Recovery and enforcement services used by an NBFC to collect defaulted loan instalments are integral to the continuing lending activity and qualify as input services for CENVAT credit under the inclusive definition covering services related to financing and security. Credit on commission paid to recovery or collection agents is therefore treated as admissible. Extended limitation requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade; omitted service-wise return details do not establish concealment where credit was disclosed and no such break-up was prescribed. In an interpretational dispute, the extended-period demand is time-barred. Penalties require inadmissible credit and culpable suppression, and do not survive where those elements are absent.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely because service-provider invoices omit the Service Tax registration number without considering relevant coordinate Tribunal decisions on the effect of that omission. Reasoned adjudication requires the decision-maker to address applicable precedents or record a factual basis for distinguishing them before sustaining denial. The CENVAT-credit entitlement therefore requires fresh adjudication after due consideration of the relevant Tribunal decisions.

Pre-existing disputes concerning an alleged operational debt prevent initiation of CIRP under Section 9 where they arose before the Section 8 demand notice. A legal notice denying the underlying purchase orders and supplies, allegations of fraudulent transactions, related complaints, and Information Utility records identifying the debt as disputed may demonstrate a genuine dispute. Where objections concern the genuineness of purchase orders, invoices, deliveries and payments, and require detailed factual determination in civil proceedings, they cannot be resolved through summary insolvency proceedings. The Section 9 application is consequently barred where the dispute is not spurious or illusory.

Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires insolvency or bankruptcy applications against personal guarantors to be filed before the NCLT where the corporate debtor's CIRP or liquidation is pending. The mandatory common forum is intended to ensure consistency and prevent parallel or conflicting proceedings. Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, read with Rule 2(7), permits the NCLT President to transfer proceedings between Benches, including across territorial locations, where necessary to implement that forum requirement. Personal-guarantor proceedings should therefore be pursued before the Bench handling the corporate debtor's CIRP or liquidation.

Order I Rule 10(2) permits impleadment of suspended directors where their rights are affected by a challenged forensic audit report and their presence is necessary for complete adjudication. Corporate insolvency resolution process transfers company management to the resolution professional and suspends directors' powers; where the resolution professional declines to pursue the writ proceedings, the challenge may continue through the added directors. Amendments recording the company's admission to insolvency proceedings and the resolution professional's appointment are formal where they do not change the writ petition's nature. The company may be transposed as a respondent and represented through the resolution professional.

Disgorgement under SEBI's remedial powers was considered in relation to an exchange's due diligence in verifying vendor licences, the absence of fraud or inducement under the PFUTP framework, and equal, transparent access to co-location facilities. P2P connectivity outside the exchange trading path does not, by itself, confer a latency advantage. The issues also concerned the distinction between remedial disgorgement and punitive or debarment measures against senior management, including proportionality. Civil appeals were disposed of under a settlement, leaving all questions of law open.

Buyback escrow release and forfeiture operate separately from proceedings concerning fraudulent or unfair trade practices. Compliance with escrow-release conditions does not determine whether fraud occurred or confer immunity from an independent inquiry. Fraud requires reliable material assessed on the balance of probabilities from the cumulative circumstances, rather than conjecture or suspicion. Where allegations depend on historical trading data, unresolved inconsistencies between exchange records and investigation findings-including contradictory assessments of a corporate announcement's market impact-undermine the evidentiary basis for a fraud determination. The statutory appellate forum may obtain further evidence, examine relevant persons, and determine the fraud question using accurate trading data and corroborating circumstances.

Approval of a corporate debtor's resolution plan binds all creditors, including governmental authorities. Statutory dues arising before plan approval that are not included in the approved plan stand extinguished, preventing initiation or continuation of related customs-duty proceedings. As the binding effect of the plan precluded pursuit of excluded pre-approval claims, the pending customs-duty appeal proceedings could not continue after approval of the resolution plan.

Revenue bears the burden of displacing a declared customs classification through reliable, comprehensive evidence. Specialised testing based on fuller parameters identified the imported product as Naphtha or light Naphtha, while Natural Gasoline Liquid was treated as falling within the broader genus of Naphtha; the declared tariff classification therefore remained undisturbed. WhatsApp chats, statements and related electronic material lacked the certification and statutory safeguards required for admissibility under the Customs Act, and were neither tested through examination and cross-examination nor corroborated by evidence of benefit from an alleged change of origin. The material could not sustain allegations of misdeclaration or document manipulation.

Customs broker liability for abetting import undervaluation remained established because the declared value of premium-brand engines was substantially below the redetermined value. However, the broker had sought first-check examination before assessment, bringing the consignment to departmental notice. Earlier licensing-regulation proceedings had also found that the broker was not wholly responsible for the undervaluation, and a separate penalty had been paid. These factors evidenced bona fide conduct and diligence, making the original penalty disproportionate. The penalty under the Customs Act was therefore sustained but substantially reduced.

Tariff classification of imported sensors turns on their objective characteristics and functions under General Rules for Interpretation Rules 1 and 6, with specific entries prevailing over residuary Heading 9031 and Revenue bearing the burden of disproving the declared classification. Thermistor-based temperature sensors, electrochemical gas-analysis sensors, pedal-position assemblies, vehicle-specific retainers and magnetic-field speed sensors require classification according to their respective functions. Section 28 cannot solely alter classification after a completed nil-duty assessment without proposed duty recovery. Alternative FTA relief requires proof of notification conditions and origin documents; revenue neutrality cannot rest on hypothetical exemptions. Wrong self-assessment alone does not establish suppression for extended limitation, and IGST interest requires a substantive statutory charging or borrowing provision.

Penalty under Sections 114(i) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires more than deficient verification of an exporter's antecedents or KYC particulars. Section 114(i) requires an identifiable act, omission or abetment with a statutory nexus to goods becoming liable to confiscation. Where a Customs Broker obtained authorisation, verified the exporter's IEC through DGFT and ICEGATE, and reviewed an earlier shipping bill, absent evidence of involvement in substitution, stuffing, transport, tampering, false documentation, collusion, container control or facilitation of prohibited exports, a KYC lapse remains regulatory. Section 117 cannot independently impose a residuary penalty without an established statutory contravention.

Limitation for a departmental Customs Act appeal is determined by its original filing date; call-book placement and later renumbering do not create a fresh appeal. SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. requires payment at import, subsequent sale, VAT/CST payment, and supporting records. Verified Bills of Entry, sales invoices, reconciliation, and reliable Chartered Accountant certification can establish correlation despite generic goods descriptions or differing grade nomenclature. Consignment-agent sales do not defeat refund where authority to sell and tax-payment correlation are certified. On these requirements, refund remains admissible and recovery based solely on denial cannot continue.

Show-cause notice limits adjudication to the material factual and legal grounds alleged; liability cannot rest on unalleged consignor or exporter status, missing consignor authorisation, or knowing participation in an attempted export. Courier KYC verification under Regulation 13(i) requires reliable, independent and authentic material, not necessarily two identity documents where one genuine driving licence proves identity and address. Regulation 13(j) concerns unauthorised outsourcing of regulatory functions, not physical consignment collection. Penal liability for concealed prohibited goods requires cogent proof that the authorised courier knowingly participated in, facilitated, or made a false declaration; reliance on consignor-provided information alone does not establish knowledge or intent.

Extended-period customs notices require specific allegations of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression; later assertions outside the notice cannot supply those statutory preconditions. Where differential duty and interest have been paid pursuant to an audit demand, accepted, and the audit objections closed, a subsequent notice is not authorised after payment and intimation and cannot be sustained through the extended limitation provision without pleaded foundational facts. The alternative appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where later duty proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction or barred by limitation.

Prospective operation of an import-notification amendment prevents its application to a provisional-release request where the Bill of Lading predates the amendment and the amendment contains no express retrospective effect. Customs authorities must consider provisional release under the Customs Act and may release the goods subject to lawful conditions; they cannot reject or decline consideration solely by relying on the later amendment. The applicable rate of duty remains subject to determination in adjudication under the statutory rules governing the relevant date for duty assessment.