Post-import authorisation is available only through a warehousing route: the importer must file an into-bond Bill of Entry, execute the warehousing bond, and retain goods under Customs control while obtaining the authorisation. Clearance for home consumption requires an ex-bond Bill of Entry accompanied by the valid authorisation, with duty benefits assessed at that stage. The facility principally concerns freely importable goods and does not regularise prohibited goods; restricted and State Trading Enterprise imports are excluded unless specific relaxation is granted.

Where AMP expenses form part of operating costs and international transactions have been tested as arm's length under TNMM, separate benchmarking of AMP as an independent international transaction is not supported. Segregating AMP through an additional cost-plus analysis or bright-line approach may distort the operating-margin analysis. A receivables adjustment requires verification whether working-capital adjustments already account for the relevant impact.

An expired e-way bill does not by itself establish tax evasion, but expiry coupled with a vehicle wholly different from that recorded in Part B, unexplained delay or route deviation, and absent contemporaneous evidence may constitute substantive transit-documentation non-compliance. Part B must identify the vehicle actually transporting the goods and must be updated after transshipment. Minor-error relaxation does not automatically cover a complete vehicle mismatch. Credible records are required to rebut the presumption arising from movement without a complete and valid e-way bill.

Recognised PSIAs receive a one-time seven-day transitional window beginning September 16, 2026 to issue backlog PSICs for inspections conducted before August 25, 2026, where system restrictions prevented issuance. For applicable inspections, each PSIC must be generated and issued within two days from inspection, and the system permits issuance only during that period. Uploading must occur from the same geographical location or country as the inspection. Other provisions of the earlier framework remain operative.

GST appellate pre-deposit must be assessed against the tax actually remaining in dispute after first appellate relief. Although deposits at the first appellate and Tribunal stages ordinarily operate cumulatively, they do not create unrelated liabilities arising from the same tax dispute. Where the reduced demand is accepted and an earlier deposit exceeds the aggregate prescribed requirement for the surviving tax, the revenue stands sufficiently secured and no duplicate deposit is required. Tribunal fee compliance remains an independent condition, and further deposit is necessary where the earlier payment is insufficient.

Paragraph 2.57(c) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 exempts an export consignment with an FOB value not exceeding Rs. 3,00,000 from the Registration-cum-Membership Certificate or Certificate of Registration requirement otherwise covered by paragraph 2.57. The exemption applies to each consignment, not annual turnover or aggregate exports. Consignments above the threshold remain subject to the existing registration requirement wherever applicable. The limited exemption does not displace other customs, foreign-exchange, tax, licensing, product-specific, shipping, or documentation obligations.

Article 226 judicial review examines the legality of a statutory authority's decision-making process and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a plausible disciplinary assessment based on the record. The Board's closure of the disciplinary complaint therefore remains undisturbed where no illegality, mala fides, or deliberate facilitation is established. Absence of a fiduciary or professional relationship does not itself exclude other misconduct, but is material where the prima facie opinion depends on the existence of that relationship. Pending criminal proceedings do not bar independent disciplinary jurisdiction; disciplinary action may proceed on the available evidence.

Recall of a merits order quashing issuance of process requires a cogent ground or identifiable infirmity; a complainant's absence at the final hearing alone is insufficient. Where the complaint has been adjudicated on the pleadings and record under the Negotiable Instruments Act provisions governing cheque dishonour and company liability, prior adjournments sought for the complainant and the absence of any demonstrated defect do not justify reopening the merits determination. Recall is therefore unwarranted.

Section 34 petitions filed within three months of an arbitral award satisfy the limitation period under Section 34(3). Where a contract directs adjudication before the court having jurisdiction at the place of work execution, and the work was executed in Sundargarh, the competent court there may entertain the award challenge. In the absence of an express or agreed juridical seat, arbitral sittings at another location for convenience constitute only a venue and do not create exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. Arbitrator appointment proceedings do not select the local court for subsequent proceedings, and Section 42 does not preclude merits consideration by the competent court at Sundargarh.

Statutory demand notices under proviso (b) to Section 138 are treated as given when sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act create a rebuttable presumption of service; the drawer must prove an incorrect address, lack of tender, or non-knowledge not attributable to the drawer. Receipt by a co-residing family member does not alone rebut that presumption. A contrary approach that ignores larger-Bench authority and shared residence is per incuriam and lacks binding force under Article 141.

Builder construction undertaken after an agreement for sale with a purchaser is treated as a works contract because it is performed for that purchaser; construction completed without a prior purchaser agreement is not. VAT may therefore apply in principle to post-agreement construction. For 2005-06, however, the absence of an operative mechanism to determine taxable turnover attributable to goods transferred under an indivisible works contract prevents enforcement of the levy, despite the activity falling within the statutory works-contract definition.

VAT under Section 3 arises only when goods are sold. Where goods recorded as short in a survey are later sold and tax is paid on those sales, a separate levy on the shortage without considering those payments may result in double taxation. A default assessment requires fresh consideration of the subsequent sales and tax paid on the allegedly short goods; otherwise, its jurisdictional basis is affected.

Appellate review was confined to the EOU-clearance component because the Revenue challenged only that part of the dropped duty demand; separate supply categories could not be restored. Cement was ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. For cement supplied to the EOU, duty already paid on 125.80 MT required adjustment, leaving liability only on 173.90 MT, with interest. The penalty was set aside.

Tariff classification distinguishes batter-coated, spiced and deep-fried peanuts from salted peanuts fried only in vegetable oil. The former, having a distinct commercial identity as a gram-flour-based food preparation, falls under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2106 90 99 and qualifies for the relevant exemption; the latter remains within sub-heading 2008 11 00 under the specific-entry principle and is not exempt. ISD-distributed CENVAT credit is available to an eligible contract manufacturing unit for the pre-1 April 2016 period where service costs enter the assessable value; later amendments cure a scheme lacuna from inception. Penalties do not arise from an interpretational classification or credit dispute absent mens rea, fraud, collusion, wilful suppression, or intent to evade duty.

Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies where an assessee manufactures both dutiable and exempt goods without maintaining separate accounts for inputs or input services. Job-worked goods cleared without payment of duty to the principal manufacturer remain dutiable goods; non-payment of duty by the job worker at clearance does not render them exempt goods. Consequently, Cenvat credit on consumables used to manufacture job-worked goods is not barred under Rule 6(2), and denial of that credit is unsustainable.

CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because raw-material shortages are recorded where the stock is explained as work-in-progress and supported by work log sheets. Authorities must examine that explanation and investigate whether the inputs were actually received before treating shortages as proof of non-receipt. Uninvestigated raw-material shortages, without addressing contemporaneous production records, do not establish that goods were not received and cannot by themselves justify denial of credit.

Fiscal liability for clandestine removal requires reliable, corroborated evidence connecting unaccounted inputs, manufacture, removal, transport, recipients and consideration. Unsigned loose sheets, WhatsApp printouts, Tally data recovered from third-party premises, and unverified third-party files lack sufficient evidentiary value where authorship, custody, provenance, extraction, integrity, and statutory safeguards for electronic records are not established. Statements indicating only a marketing connection cannot independently prove clandestine manufacture or clearance. Natural justice requires disclosure of relied-upon statements and records. Assumptions based on selected consumption ratios or uncorroborated private records cannot substitute for a complete evidentiary chain.

Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 excludes supplies to qualifying Mega Power Projects under International Competitive Bidding from Rules 6(1) to 6(4). Project certificates supporting supplies for expansion of an existing Mega Power Project under that procedure meet the exception. Customs-duty exemption for this purpose includes partial basic-duty exemption coupled with nil additional customs duty; full exemption from every customs-duty component is unnecessary. Consequently, separate accounts, credit reversal, and prescribed percentage payment requirements do not apply to qualifying supplies.

Electronic data and computer printouts qualify as documentary evidence for excise purposes only when statutory conditions, including the required certificate, are met. Material failing that threshold cannot quantify alleged clandestine manufacture or clearance; the limited third-party certificate exception requires proof that all possible steps to secure it were taken. Investigative statements remain distinct evidence. Refusal of cross-examination invalidates reliance on them only where demonstrated, witness-specific prejudice exists. Unretracted statements, read with invoices, transport, weighment and statutory records, may establish transactions or quantities independently, but quantities appearing only in inadmissible electronic records cannot be adopted. Duty, interest and penalties must rest solely on independently admissible evidence after hearing.

Admissibility of evidence governs denial of CENVAT credit for alleged non-receipt of inputs. Third-party investigative statements require examination and formal admission unless a statutory exception applies, while third-party electronic records require prescribed safeguards and certification. Uncorroborated transport discrepancies or portal data do not, without transaction-specific proof, displace invoices, payment records, production records and duty-paid clearances. Personal penalty requires proof of knowledge, active participation and conscious dealing with goods liable to confiscation. A deposit during investigation, including a payment asserted to be coerced, does not alone establish liability or fraudulent availment of credit.