Interest on the refund of an investigation deposit treated as a pre-deposit is confined to the statutory rate under Section 35FF, rather than a rate higher than 6% per annum. Entitlement to a higher rate was raised as a substantial question of law in a statutory appeal, which was dismissed without interference with the challenged judgment.

Exclusive possession and the right to use deep freezers under dealer agreements constitute a deemed sale excluded from the definition of service under the Finance Act, 1994, even where the supplier retains ownership and can recover the freezers on termination. The refundable, interest-free security deposits do not constitute taxable consideration without a nexus to a service; the absence of an actual refund does not negate the contractual refund provision. The extended limitation period requires the tax department to establish a positive act of suppression with intent to evade tax. Registration for other service tax liabilities does not itself establish suppression concerning the freezer arrangement.

Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed solely for a mismatch between audited accounts and ST-3 returns without examining related differences in taxable value, tax liability and payments; return disclosure is not a condition of entitlement. Scrap sales are excluded from service tax as trading in goods, while separately accounted pre-sale vehicle logistics and handling charges do not constitute independent services. From 14 May 2015, consideration includes reimbursable expenditure charged in providing taxable services; outdoor-service and pick-up and drop receipts under a bilateral rather than pure-agent arrangement are taxable. Cancellation charges and insurance sub-broker commissions are taxable; the principal's tax liability or potential credit does not remove the sub-broker's liability. For the remaining liabilities, the interpretational nature of the disputes precludes extended limitation and section 78 penalties.

An adjudicating authority becomes functus officio after passing a final refund order and cannot seek fresh clarification to revisit the sanction. The show-cause notice defines the grounds of the departmental case, so review or appellate proceedings cannot introduce an unnotified ground to deny a sanctioned refund. Where the notice seeks clarification of service classification and other particulars, non-production of an export order or non-compliance with the Export of Service Rules, 2005 cannot be introduced as a new ground for denial.

Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits service by affixation on the authority's notice board and provides for deemed service upon prescribed affixation. Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 permits an appeal within two months of receipt, with a further month available for condonation. Limitation runs from valid deemed service, and delay beyond the condonable period cannot be excused. Notice-board affixation constituted valid service where personal delivery at the disclosed address failed and no new address had been supplied.

Statutory limitation for appeals, condonation of delay on medical grounds and writ jurisdiction in relation to a time-barred appeal arise in connection with service tax on works contract services. The allegations concern discrepancies between turnover reflected in income tax returns or Form 26AS and turnover disclosed in ST-3 returns, as well as non-payment of service tax for certain periods.

Charter hire of workover rigs raises classification issues under Maintenance, Management and Repair services, including incidental repair or maintenance and taxability following subsequent legislative or classificatory inclusion. Related issues include the extended limitation period, natural justice, compliance with remand directions and relief from penalty under Section 80. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed for low tax effect, with the question of law kept open.

Property involved in money laundering may be subject to confirmation of attachment and confiscation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The immovable property remained subject to attachment as proceeds of crime. The appellant had been convicted of a scheduled drug offence; claimed masonry income was unsupported by income-tax returns or other proof, and the claimed ancestral property sale proceeds lacked supporting evidence. Cash deposits remained unexplained, and a withdrawal coincided with execution of the sale deed for the attached property.

Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code removes specified resolution-applicant disqualifications for MSME promoters but does not exempt them from separate financial eligibility criteria prescribed under section 25. Promoters must satisfy the committee-approved net-worth requirement through the same invitation process as other applicants. Under regulation 36A, the resolution professional checks expressions of interest against the approved criteria and may reject non-compliant submissions without referring the proposal to the committee. The committee's commercial decisions are subject to limited review. Where the threshold is based on business scale and asset value rather than a creditor's claim, recomputation of that claim does not itself invalidate the threshold or require a revised information memorandum or fresh invitation.

Section 19 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code imposes a continuing duty on suspended management to assist and cooperate with the resolution professional. Creditor approval of a resolution plan and partial disclosure of records do not discharge that duty. Section 19(2) permits the resolution professional to seek directions, while Section 60(5) and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules provide powers to impose costs for conduct in proceedings. Section 70 addresses punishment for misconduct without displacing those powers. An incorrect reference to an enabling provision does not invalidate a costs order if the power exists under another source of law.

Fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings for a purpose other than bona fide resolution may warrant recall of admission, termination of the process and a penalty. Material liabilities must be disclosed at initiation; a later creditor claim cannot cure deliberate concealment. Initiation requires valid corporate authorisation, and section 176 of the Companies Act does not protect acts performed after the company knew an appointment had terminated. A resolution plan becomes binding only upon approval by the adjudicating authority; committee approval and later party consent cannot sustain a process tainted by fraud at initiation. Earlier non-joinder of a resolution applicant does not prevent recall where the applicant is fully heard on appeal and suffers no prejudice.

A limited forensic audit may verify when a creditor appropriated a corporate debtor's security deposit if the creditor provides conflicting dates relevant to the insolvency resolution process. Verification may cover relevant accounting records and electronic data, with the audit confined to establishing the actual date of appropriation. The timing is material where the conflicting dates place appropriation either before the insolvency resolution process commenced or during the moratorium.

A borrower's written acknowledgment of subsisting debt before expiry of the limitation period starts a fresh period and can bind a guarantor where the guarantee so provides. Rejection of a settlement proposal does not itself negate an acknowledgment. A continuing guarantee may preserve the guarantor's obligations despite changes to loan or security documents; resignation as director or revised credit facilities do not alone establish novation or release. Disputed signatures on later documents do not automatically prevent summary insolvency proceedings where admitted earlier guarantees independently establish debt and default. Non-enforcement of collateral does not discharge a guarantor without proof of the relevant conditions, such as impairment of security or release of the principal debtor.

Dissolution following striking off causes a company to cease operating, subject to statutory purposes preserved under sections 248 and 250 of the Companies Act, 2013, including realization of amounts due and discharge of liabilities. Proceedings outside those preserved purposes cannot be maintained unless the company is restored under section 252. A dissolved company cannot maintain a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, rather than recovery of amounts due, unless it is restored.

Confiscation under section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires evidence that goods were used to conceal confiscable goods; transporting tea and contraband in the same vehicle is not sufficient by itself. The tea was in the vehicle's rear, while the contraband was recovered from the driver's cabin. Penalties under section 114 require cogent evidence linking the owner or transporter to the alleged contraband activity. The driver's statement and call records did not implicate them, and defects in transport documents did not establish their involvement.

Immediate suspension of a customs broker's licence pending inquiry under Regulation 16 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires a demonstrated need for urgent action. Suspension cannot be sustained where the licensing authority delays acting on an offence report and identifies no subsequent information establishing urgency. Regulation 17 governs disciplinary proceedings, while separate action to revoke the licence remains subject to the applicable procedure and timelines.

Unsubstantiated allegations of arbitrariness, mala fides or abuse of statutory power do not warrant a direction to investigate customs officials over delayed clearance. The declared description and value of the goods appeared incorrect, and the higher value identified by customs was not disputed. Customs communicated its reasons for withholding immediate clearance shortly after the goods arrived.

Adjudicatory decisions cannot be sustained when they rely on cited precedents that cannot be traced and are disclaimed by the authority. This applies where untraceable citations support treating the fifteen-day period for a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act as directory. Fake or hallucinated precedents cannot provide a basis for adjudication, and the classification of the period cannot rest on such disclaimed citations.

Admissibility of statements recorded under section 108 raises questions about compliance with the mandatory procedure in section 138B. Electronic evidence raises questions about the provenance of emails. Customs valuation issues include rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and redetermination under Rule 9, including by reference to comparable invoices. The beneficial owner doctrine is also relevant.

Benami-law amendments introduced in 2016 apply retrospectively insofar as they are declaratory, curative or procedural, including machinery for attachment, adjudication and confiscation. Provisions creating new offences or enhancing punishment apply prospectively. A benami transaction involves property held by one person for the benefit of another who provided the consideration. Deposits under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 may qualify as benami property where void declarations and a request to adjust the deposits against another person's tax demand support identification of that person as the provider of consideration and beneficiary.