Refunds of accumulated Compensation Cess credit on zero-rated exports must be calculated from Net ITC actually availed during the relevant period. A reversal recorded in Form GSTR-3B within that period affects the formula only where the reversed credit was availed and included in that period's Net ITC. Historical credit reversed during the period, but never included in the current computation, cannot be deducted merely because of the timing of the entry. Administrative clarification and income-tax accounting cannot add conditions absent from the statutory formula.

Statutory conciliation initiated by a Council notice under the MSMED Act does not create an adjudicatory lis, because the dispute becomes adversarial only if conciliation fails. Article 227 review of a notice requiring participation in mediation is therefore premature. A fresh mediation notice issued after withdrawal of an earlier challenge, where the Council indicated it would entertain a fresh claim, does not constitute an impermissible review. A registered supplier's statutory remedy before the Council remains independent of parallel commercial civil proceedings, which do not legally bar consideration of the supplier's claim. The mediation process may therefore continue.

Admission of a cheque's signature and issuance activates presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt. A blank-cheque defence must be supported by material capable of establishing a probable defence; missing transaction records alone do not displace those presumptions. Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of concurrent findings without perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest injustice. Actual receipt of a statutory demand notice, evidenced by signed acknowledgement, establishes service without resort to deemed-service rules. Cheque-dishonour sentencing may combine deterrent imprisonment with compensatory and restitutive monetary relief, assessed for proportionality.

Amendments expanding agricultural produce and adding vegetable oils do not require prior Presidential assent because a fiscal levy affecting profitability does not directly impede trade under Article 301, and the State retains legislative competence over markets and fees. The statutory definition of sale, including transfers between market areas, serves to prevent fee evasion and operates separately from general contractual sales law. However, executive schedule amendments cannot treat rice bran oil, rice oil or de-oiled rice bran as agricultural produce where solvent extraction and refining create commercially distinct manufactured products; related inclusions and fee demands are invalid. Market fees need no individual quid pro quo, and marketing regulation does not conflict with industrial regulation.

Section 37(1)(b) vests appellate jurisdiction over refusal of Section 9 interim relief exclusively in the competent court under Section 2(1)(e). That jurisdiction is distinct from the Arbitral Tribunal's Section 17 power to grant interim measures and cannot be transferred by consent or by remitting an appeal for treatment as a Section 17 application. Once the Tribunal is constituted, a party may independently seek Section 17 interim measures, which must be assessed on subsequent events and the relief then sought. A direction converting or remitting the statutory appeal to the Tribunal is therefore impermissible.

Pre-deposit cannot be insisted on before verifying whether the appellant was legally required to file the disputed e-return under the Gujarat VAT framework. Section 29 read with Rule 19 prima facie indicated no such filing obligation, but the applicability of that position and the factual assertions required determination by the adjudicating authority. The first appeal must therefore be reconsidered on merits without requiring pre-deposit; no merits determination on the tax assessment or legal questions occurred.

Section 34(2) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act imposes a mandatory one-year period for completing an assessment remanded for fresh determination. Where no fresh assessment is completed within that period, the earlier default assessment demand ceases to subsist. Consequently, no legal basis remains to retain a pre-deposit paid for objections against that demand; it must be processed for refund with applicable interest. Expiry of the limitation period therefore extinguishes enforcement of the remanded assessment demand.

Interest calculation under Delhi value added tax law was challenged through a writ petition despite an available statutory appeal. The writ petition was disposed of as not pressed, preserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned orders. The appellate authority was requested to determine any appeal filed within three weeks expeditiously.

Cenvat credit is admissible on invoices issued by registered dealers where the claimant is identified as consignee with registration particulars and proves physical receipt, statutory recording and manufacturing use of inputs, notwithstanding that another entity is named as customer. Entries in RG 23A records and monthly returns demonstrating credit and input particulars negate suppression of material facts. Accordingly, the extended limitation period does not apply where the relevant credit was disclosed through prescribed statutory records and returns.

Spool welding electrodes used to rebuild, repair and maintain grinding rollers and tables in a cement vertical roller mill qualify as inputs for Cenvat credit. Their use in maintaining machinery directly employed in producing the final product establishes the necessary nexus with manufacturing, bringing the electrodes within the applicable input-credit scheme.

CENVAT credit supported by valid invoices, statutory records, receipt and freight documentation, banking payments, and undisputed use in manufacture cannot be denied solely on untested third-party statements. Statements of suppliers or transporters require compliance with the statutory procedure for admission, including examination of the statement-makers, and must be supported by positive evidence of non-receipt or fraudulent availment. In the absence of factory discrepancies, cash reimbursement evidence, or an alternative source of inputs, credit denial, consequential interest, and penalties are unsustainable. Extended limitation also requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty.

CENVAT credit supported by statutory receipt records, valid invoices, banking payments and undisputed consumption in manufacturing dutiable final products cannot be denied merely on untested supplier or transporter statements and uncorroborated presumptions. Investigation statements require compliance with the prescribed evidentiary procedure before reliance, and the Revenue must establish alleged non-receipt through tangible corroborative evidence. Extended limitation for a credit demand requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty; absent specific sustainable allegations and proof, the extended period is unavailable. Consequently, the credit demand, related interest and penalties lack legal basis.

Capacity-based levy under Section 3A depends on the maximum speed at which a packing machine can operate, not actual production. Rules 4 and 5 link deemed production and duty to that speed, while Rule 6 allows approval and revised declarations after parameter changes. Following conversion from twin-pack to single-pack, the original speed rating did not govern. Without reliable technical evidence supporting the lower band, duty applies under the category for machines operating at 751 pouches per minute and above.

Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permits excise-duty remission for goods that become unfit for consumption or marketing before removal. Where a trademark injunction prevents use of the relevant brand and renders existing stock unsaleable, remission cannot be denied on unverified assumptions that the goods could be repacked under another brand or exported. A show-cause notice founded solely on a remission-rejection order cannot survive once that foundational order has been set aside.

AED (GSI) credit under the MODVAT regime was unavailable for unprocessed nylon tyre cord fabric where the intermediate TCWS was exempt from AED (GSI) and finished tyres were not chargeable to that duty. Rule 57C barred credit for inputs used in exempt or nil-rated final products, while Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) confined AED (GSI) credit to payment of the same additional duty on final products; it could not offset basic excise duty. Refund for exported tyres likewise required valid underlying credit and therefore did not arise. Later CENVAT changes did not apply to 1998-99, and the retrospective amendment applied only from 1 April 2000.

Royalty arising from mining leases executed before 1 April 2016 falls within the negative-list treatment under the Finance Act, 1994 and is not subject to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The execution date of each mining lease requires factual verification where the agreements were not produced before lower authorities. Once pre-1 April 2016 execution is established, no penalty is imposable in relation to the royalty liability.

Supply of tangible goods service applies only where tangible goods are provided for use without transferring possession and effective control. Vehicles fitted with hydrogen cylinder skids, charged on a per-trip basis, were characterised as transportation activity rather than vehicle renting. The activity was therefore not classifiable as supply of tangible goods service. It also did not satisfy the requirements for classification as goods transport agency service. Consequently, the service-tax demand raised under the supply of tangible goods service category was set aside.

Extended limitation for service-tax recovery requires positive, deliberate and wilful suppression; mere failure or omission to declare receipts does not suffice, particularly where the department already possesses Form 26AS, income-tax return and receipt data. Recovery cannot rest on the extended period without independent evidence of intent to evade tax. The public-road construction exemption for works contract services covers widening and strengthening works and integral footpaths within a composite Government road-development project. On that basis, the service-tax demand and consequential interest and penalties are unsustainable.

Commission-based order procurement for an overseas principal qualifies as export of Business Auxiliary Service where the recipient is outside India and consideration is received in foreign exchange; under later rules, the place of provision follows the recipient's location. Equipment hire transferring possession, custody and effective control to the customer is a deemed sale rather than Supply of Tangible Goods service. Reverse-charge demands based solely on disclosed accounts, particularly where tax would be available as Cenvat credit, lack suppression and are time-barred. Rule 10 permits Cenvat-credit transfer on demerger; disclosed credit supported by invoices, registers and reconciliations cannot be denied. Audit-based demands founded on returns and departmental disclosures do not justify extended limitation absent intent to evade tax.

Licence fees and additional licence fees paid for a State-granted exclusive liquor privilege are statutory imposts, not consideration for a taxable service, where the State assumes no reciprocal service obligation. Before 1 April 2016, the grant did not constitute support services and fell within the Negative List; later expansion of taxable Government services retained the requirement of an activity for consideration. Retrospective relief also neutralised service tax on relevant liquor-licence and application fees after that date. Extended limitation does not apply absent suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; consequently, the related tax, interest and penalties do not subsist.