Depot and warehouse C&F services, including receipt, unloading, storage, handling and loading of goods sold from those locations, qualify as input services because a depot or consignment agent's premises may be the place of removal. Post-depot transportation, delivery and unloading in FOR-destination transactions require verification of contractual terms governing transfer of title and risk, freight and insurance responsibilities, assessable value, and whether delivery is a condition of sale. Extended limitation does not apply where credit was disclosed in statutory records, audited, and involved an interpretative dispute without fraud or deliberate suppression. Equivalent penalty is consequently unsustainable; only eligible credit within the normal limitation period requires quantification.

Central Excise liability for dolochar, fly ash, iron ore fines and similar residues requires manufacture or production; marketability, sale value and tariff classification alone are insufficient. Unavoidable coal residues and handling or screening fines do not become distinct commodities unless an independent process creates goods with a separate name, character or use. Where dolochar is treated as Chapter 26 waste from sponge-iron manufacture, an unconditional waste exemption applies, leaving no effective duty. An interpretational dispute, including divergent administrative views, does not establish fraud, suppression or intent to evade; extended limitation, interest and penalties therefore cannot apply.

Extended limitation for central excise duty requires proof that non-levy or short-levy resulted from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Departmental knowledge does not alter the statutory relevant date once the extended period applies, but contemporaneous possession of statutory records and knowledge of stock verification may negate deliberate suppression. Where notices identify no withheld fact, breached disclosure duty, deliberate concealment, or intent to evade, non-reporting of shortages or excesses does not itself establish suppression. The ordinary limitation period applies, and penalty depends on the same culpable conduct required for extended limitation.

Construction of residential staff quarters for factory employees does not constitute Commercial or Industrial Construction Service merely because the employer operates an industrial undertaking; such housing is a welfare activity. A sub-contractor remains independently liable to service tax even where the main contractor has paid it. However, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax. Bona fide non-payment amid genuinely divergent judicial views on taxability does not establish that intent, rendering a demand based solely on the extended period time-barred, with related interest and penalties unsustainable.

Residential construction by builders before 1 July 2010 was not taxable merely because purchaser consideration was received before completion, as the relevant deeming provision did not apply retrospectively. Buildings or independently identifiable projects with twelve or fewer units fell outside the residential-complex definition, and the works-contract category could not expand that scope. Separate agreements for completion of flats intended for purchasers' personal residential use qualified for the personal-use exclusion. A separate levy on landowners' allotted flats was impermissible where development-rights value was already included in the developer's taxed value. Residual taxable receipts qualified for prescribed abatement and cum-tax valuation, while interpretational disputes without fraud or deliberate suppression did not justify extended limitation or penalties.

Extended limitation for alleged short reversal of CENVAT credit requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention intended to evade duty; reversals disclosed in returns and capable of verification do not establish such intent. Proportionate reversal under Rule 6 is confined to common credit attributable to inputs or input services used for both taxable and exempted activities, excluding credit exclusively used for taxable outputs; the revised formula is treated as clarificatory. Trading involves transfer of title in goods, is excluded from the definition of service, and cannot be treated as an exempted service merely because of the negative-list framework. Consequently, a demand based on total-credit reversal is legally unsustainable.

Transfer of development rights in land for a share of built-up area is a transaction in immovable property, not a taxable construction or other service, because such rights are benefits arising from land. Service tax paid on that transaction may be refundable, subject to unjust enrichment. Works-contract and administrative services received from the developer do not qualify as input services where the development-rights transfer is not an output service; related CENVAT credit is therefore recoverable. However, a bona fide treatment of the transfer as taxable construction service restricts recovery to the normal limitation period and precludes penalty.

Service of the notice and relied-upon documents was established by the appellant's acknowledged endorsement while in custody. A delayed denial of receipt, unsupported by any complaint against the serving official, did not establish a breach of natural justice. Permission to inspect the documents and adequate time to submit a reply satisfied the requirement of a fair hearing; a subsequent request for further copies and additional time was treated as dilatory. The provisional attachment's confirmation therefore remained unaffected.

Director liability for unrealised export proceeds can continue despite the company entering liquidation where the director controlled its affairs during the contravention and does not rebut the presumption that reasonable recovery steps were not taken. Knowledge of an investigation, combined with failure to respond after notices, service attempts and affixture, defeats a claim of denial of a fair hearing. Liquidation does not by itself remove liability or establish inability to obtain company records from the Official Liquidator. Although the contravention and personal liability remained, the penalty was confined to the amount already deposited, considering the elapsed period, adjudication delay and liquidation.

Liquidation under Section 33(1) requires the resolution professional to make an independent, objective assessment consistent with the insolvency framework; reliance on informal creditor communication without Committee of Creditors deliberation, where no creditor voted for liquidation, renders liquidation unsustainable. Withdrawal under Section 12A forms a settlement-based insolvency exit alongside resolution plans and liquidation. Where a viable one-time settlement is being implemented and financial debts have been substantially addressed, the CIRP timeline is directory and extensions may support consideration of withdrawal. The CIRP is restored to explore Section 12A withdrawal, preserving the corporate debtor as a going concern rather than proceeding to liquidation.

The IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025 did not apply to a going-concern sale process where liquidation had commenced before the amendment took effect. A liquidation order recording the creditors' recommendation that the liquidator explore sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern established the governing legal framework on the liquidation commencement date. The subsequent auction constituted implementation of that existing liquidation process rather than commencement of a fresh process. Absent retrospective operation, later regulations could not alter rights and obligations already governed by the earlier liquidation framework. The challenged order was set aside and the matter remitted to consider reliefs and concessions according to law.

Forensic audit reports supported by sale deeds, bank records, registration records and title-verification material can carry evidentiary weight in determining fraudulent transactions, although they are not conclusive alone. Where a liquidator produces reliable documentary audit material, former management with special knowledge must provide cogent rebuttal evidence. Overvalued property purchases, unsupported cash payments and expenses, retained vendor possession or rents, incomplete title measures, subsisting encumbrances, and loan proceeds rapidly routed back to the corporate debtor or related entities indicate accommodation and round-tripping arrangements. Such conduct supports fraudulent-transaction findings and contribution liability to the corporate debtor under insolvency law.

Declared CIF transaction value remains the primary customs valuation basis unless cogent, objective evidence shows that the invoice price excludes additional consideration actually paid or payable by the importer. Freight and insurance cannot be added where they are already included in CIF pricing and no reimbursement liability is established. Upstream FOB invoices from a separate foreign transaction and Non-GMO compliance certificates do not, without comparable-import data or proof of omitted consideration, displace the importer's declared transaction value. Extended limitation requires collusion, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression; a disclosed valuation-methodology dispute does not suffice. Without sustainable value misdeclaration and extended-period duty liability, confiscation, redemption fine, and related penalties lack foundation.

Section 123's reverse burden applies only to specified or notified goods and does not extend to Indian currency; the Revenue must therefore prove that currency represents sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Confiscation under section 121 requires proof of identified smuggled goods, a sale by a person with the requisite knowledge, and a direct, identifiable evidentiary nexus between that sale and the seized currency. Suspicion or unexplained cash is insufficient. Penalties under section 112 require identified goods liable to confiscation and proven knowing conduct concerning those goods. Remand cannot cure a fundamentally deficient evidentiary foundation by allowing new facts or links absent from the show cause notice.

Refund limitation for duty paid under provisional assessment begins when the final assessment order is communicated to the person entitled to claim the refund, not merely when the order is made. Section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act must operate consistently with the principle that a remedy cannot become time-barred before the affected person has actual or constructive knowledge of the order. Valid communication requires service through prescribed modes under Section 153; mere despatch without proof of delivery is insufficient. Revenue bears the burden of proving service. Receipt on 10.06.2014 was established, so the refund claim filed within one year was timely.

Port-service classification addresses whether storage and warehousing performed by a storage or warehouse keeper, including incidental or ancillary services, constitutes a taxable service. The legal issues include treating a composite activity as separable components for classification and identifying the proper appellate forum for a classification dispute. Procedural treatment of an exceptionally delayed civil appeal, founded on an asserted jurisdictional misconception, is also addressed.

Imported PCC Lime 0/20MM, described as quicklime, raises a customs tariff classification issue between Chapter Sub-Heading 2522 1000 and Chapter Sub-Heading 2825 9090. The classification turns on whether the product falls within the tariff treatment for lime under Chapter 25 or is to be treated as a chemical product under Chapter 28. The central legal point is the proper application of Customs Tariff headings to the imported product's stated identity and characteristics.

Pending Mutual Agreement Procedure proceedings must be considered when an assessee seeks abeyance of first appellate proceedings. The first appellate authority must address the request, record reasons for accepting or rejecting it, and provide an effective opportunity to present substantive grounds. Disposal without considering the MAP-abeyance plea or adequately adjudicating the merits breaches procedural fairness. Transfer-pricing adjustments, disallowance and computational issues remain open for fresh consideration by the competent appellate authority after reasonable hearing.

Penalty for a charitable trust's failure to furnish a return under section 272A(2)(e) runs only until the last date for voluntary filing under section 139(4). The return obligation under section 139(4A) can be voluntarily discharged only within the period permitted by section 139, including the belated-return period. Once that period expires, voluntary compliance is legally unavailable. A return furnished following a section 148 notice follows an independent statutory mechanism and does not extend the period of continuing default. Penalty therefore cannot be computed up to the date of filing the return in response to section 148.

TDS credit reflected in a deductee's Form 26AS remains allowable to that deductee under Section 199 and Rule 37BA(1), even where fixed-deposit interest is clubbed in the spouse's income under Section 64. Rule 37BA(2)(i) permits credit to be transferred only when the deductee furnishes the prescribed declaration to the deductor and the deductor reports the deduction in the other person's name. In the absence of that process, clubbing does not displace the deductee's entitlement to the recorded credit. The claimed credit requires factual verification and redetermination against the correct TDS amount.