Cenvat credit on outward transportation is admissible where goods are supplied to the buyer's premises and the supplier bears the freight. Invoices establishing delivery at the buyer's premises and freight borne by the supplier support treatment of that premises, rather than the factory gate, as the relevant place of removal. Credit on those transportation charges is therefore correctly availed, and its denial is unsustainable.

Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person dealt with excisable goods in a specified manner while knowing or having reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Supplying laminates and miscellaneous goods, assisting with material procurement, or extending a loan does not by itself establish the required participation. Unclear identity references, attribution of manufacture and transport supervision to another person, and an uncorroborated retracted statement did not establish the requisite knowledge or dealing; on these facts, the Rule 26 penalty was unsustainable.

Regular bail was granted in allegations of cess and excise-duty evasion because the suspected evasion calculation, derived solely from seized machinery under the prescribed formula, raised a prima facie doubt. The observation was limited to bail and neither determined the Rule's validity nor bound the trial court. Absence of prior antecedents, seizure of the machinery, and an unsupported apprehension of repeated conduct weighed against continued custody.

Service-tax abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. remains available where CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods or input services was initially taken but subsequently reversed in full with applicable interest. The notification's exclusion of abatement for availed credit no longer applies after complete reversal and interest payment. Accordingly, the taxable value is limited to the non-abated portion of the gross value, with 67% abatement available and service tax payable on 33%.

International outbound package tours consumed outside India fall outside service-tax liability under the territorial principle governing the levy. Air-ticket charges recovered as customer reimbursements are excluded from the taxable value of domestic package-tour services. Booking-cancellation charges, being compensation for cancellation rather than consideration for a tour-operator service, are not taxable. Where ST-3 returns were filed and fraud, suppression, or wilful negligence to evade tax is absent, the extended limitation period cannot apply; the related demand is time-barred.

Duplicate service-tax payments unsupported by a fresh taxable liability are refundable where payment records, reconciliation, accounts, audited statements and an auditor's certificate establish prior discharge of the liability. Refund requires proof that the amount was neither availed nor utilised as CENVAT credit nor passed on, thereby rebutting unjust enrichment. Errors in ST-3 reporting, accounting heads or service classification do not make the duplicate amount legally due. Statutory interest is payable on an admissible refund not sanctioned within the prescribed period through the application of section 11BB to service tax.

Stare decisis requires a Bench of lesser strength to follow a larger-Bench view. It may record a doubt and seek a larger-Bench reference, but cannot dissent from, overrule, or advance a competing view. The President may constitute a larger Bench without being constrained by the strength of the Bench whose view is questioned. A valid reference requires a genuine basis for reconsideration, such as an overlooked statutory provision, binding precedent, or apparent error, and must concern a live unresolved appeal. References that merely express disagreement, seek to reopen consistent precedent, or invite an advisory answer are improper. Consistent Tribunal decisions remain binding on lesser Benches and relevant departmental authorities unless displaced by a competent forum.

Business Auxiliary Service applies only where consideration is received for services rendered to another. Margin earned from independently purchasing and reselling airline cargo slots at agreed rates, without any commission entitlement, reflects principal-to-principal trading in which the trader bears profit or loss. Commission for general sales agency activity remains separately taxable where applicable. The cargo-slot resale margin therefore falls outside Business Auxiliary Service, rendering the associated service-tax demand unsustainable.

Service-tax exemption applies to rent-a-cab services supplied to an SEZ Unit for authorised operations, notwithstanding that the transportation occurs outside the SEZ area. Form A-1 certification by the SEZ Specified Officer identifying the service as authorised supports the exemption unless rebutted by documentary material. Staff pick-up and drop transportation connected with the certified authorised service falls within the exemption; the location of performance alone does not defeat it.

Refund proceedings cannot be used to reimpose or appropriate penalties that an appellate order has already set aside; refundable pre-deposit must be recalculated without that recovery, consistent with judicial discipline. For appeals pending before 6 August 2014, the saving proviso to amended Section 35F, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, preserves the earlier Section 35FF regime. Interest on refundable pre-deposit arises only where payment remains outstanding for more than three months after receipt or communication of the appellate order by the jurisdictional authority, not from the deposit date. Interest must therefore be computed separately for each refundable component under that regime.

Written communication quantifying service-tax dues before the applicable cut-off can satisfy the Scheme's quantification requirement. Section 121(r) of the Finance Act, 2019 treats written communication of duty payable as quantification, while the applicable circular includes letters intimating a duty demand. A pre-cut-off notice issued to a bank under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, specifying outstanding service-tax liability and creating a lien over the assessee's account, constituted valid quantification. Separate quantification of interest was not required, and addressing the notice to the bank did not affect its legal consequence for the assessee's Scheme eligibility.

Challenges to the original grant of bail require demonstrated perversity, illegality, reliance on irrelevant considerations, omission of material circumstances, or non-application of mind on the material available when bail was granted. A prima facie PMLA bail order arising from the same FIR and alleged predicate offences may be relevant, but cannot determine CBI bail applications; each accused's role requires separate assessment. Subsequent filing of a charge-sheet or alteration of penal provisions cannot retrospectively render bail orders perverse. On these principles, the original bail orders remained legally sustainable, and trial must proceed uninfluenced by prima facie bail observations.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires bail-stage reasonable grounds, assessed on broad probabilities, that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; it does not demand a detailed evidentiary appraisal or finding of innocence. Financial transactions requiring evidentiary testing, together with available records and safeguards against interference, may support conditional release. Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure operates as a beneficial speedy-trial safeguard, although release is not automatic. Custody exceeding one-half of the maximum sentence, a trial unlikely to conclude soon, and delay not attributable to the accused support protection against punitive pre-trial detention despite serious predicate allegations.

Digital Axle Counter systems integrating electronic detection and evaluation with an indispensable relay that physically switches railway interlocking circuits fall under Customs Tariff Item 86080030 as electromechanical railway signalling, safety or traffic-control equipment, rather than Heading 8530. Classification must assess the complete functional system and its principal use, not isolated electronic components. Extended recovery cannot rest on a disclosed classification, declared Bills of Entry, supporting product literature and accepted assessments without collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression. Correct classification and accurate goods descriptions remove the basis for confiscation, redemption fine, interest and corporate or personal penalties.

Customs cargo service providers, including NVOCCs operating in customs areas, cannot charge rent, detention or demurrage for goods seized, detained or confiscated by Customs. The prohibition under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations operates independently of the sixty-day provision allowing authorised carriers to demand container detention charges under the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations. Accordingly, the carrier allowance does not qualify the waiver obligation for seized goods. Breach of that obligation constitutes regulatory non-compliance and can support immediate suspension of customs registration where a post-decisional opportunity to make representations is provided, consistent with natural justice.

Ductless split air conditioners of 2-ton capacity that incorporate a refrigerating unit fall under the specific Customs Tariff entry for split air conditioners of two tons and above incorporating such a unit. Classification must begin with the tariff-heading terms and relevant notes under the General Rules for Interpretation. This specific description prevails over the general split-system entry, while the entry for split air conditioners not incorporating a refrigerating unit does not apply where the goods contain that unit. The appropriate classification is CTH 84158210, rather than CTH 84151010 or CTH 84158310.

Penalties for foreign-origin gold smuggling may be moderated where carriers played a limited role and earned modest livelihoods, while deterrence remains necessary. Reduced penalties reflected proportionality for carriers whose involvement was confined to transportation. Shop operators may remain liable where foreign-origin gold is recovered from an employee at the shop and the surrounding facts establish a connection with the smuggling operation. The distinction turns on the person's role, mitigating circumstances, and facts evidencing involvement.

Penalty for abetment of an attempted illegal export requires proof of intentional assistance and active complicity; suspicion or failure to detect concealed currency is insufficient. An uncorroborated co-noticee statement alleging payment, without recovery of money, CCTV footage, or other independent evidence, cannot establish facilitation. Electronic text-message printouts lack evidentiary value unless supported by the required certificate and forensic material linking them to the alleged person's device. A bona fide examination performed in the ordinary discharge of official duty may also attract statutory protection. Accordingly, the essential elements of abetment were not established and the penalty was unsustainable.

Customs Broker obligations under Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) require valid client authorisation, reporting of known non-compliance, and verification of client identity and functioning through reliable, independent and authentic records. Receipt of export documents through an intermediary is not prohibited where the exporter has authorised clearance. Concealed prohibited goods detected only through detailed Customs investigation do not establish a reporting breach without broker knowledge of the concealment or misdeclaration. GST registration, PAN, Aadhaar, bank verification and other prescribed KYC records can fulfil the verification requirement. Licensing sanctions require evidence of an actual regulatory breach or knowing involvement.

Concessional basic customs duty was unavailable for imports because the exemption in force did not cover the relevant tariff goods, and strict construction prevented reading an omitted entry into its terms. A later notification restoring the benefit applied only prospectively from Gazette publication because it contained no express or necessary retrospective intent. The importer's claim of an exemption that had ceased before filing the Bills of Entry supported use of the extended limitation period. Prior imports therefore remained subject to duty notwithstanding the subsequent restoration of the exemption.