Foreign-bank charges deducted from export proceeds do not, by themselves, establish that an exporter received a taxable service under the reverse charge mechanism. Liability requires proof that the service was rendered to the person sought to be taxed; bearing the economic cost is distinct from being the service recipient. Where foreign banks operate through buyers' banking arrangements and no material establishes that exporters engaged them or had a direct service relationship, the charges are not taxable in the exporters' hands. Consequential interest and penalties are also unsustainable.

The extended limitation period for service tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires proof of specified circumstances, including deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. Non-payment or failure to file returns alone does not establish deliberate suppression. Limitation is computed by reference to the relevant return periods, and penalties under Section 78 rest on the same statutory circumstances. Registration for additional taxable services and filing prescribed returns are separate obligations; penalties for non-compliance can apply independently of the limitation period for tax recovery. Existing registration for certain services does not resolve an allegation of failure to register for additional services.

Engineering services involving construction design, quantities and costs fall under consulting engineer services when competing descriptions are equally specific, the essential-character test does not apply and that category appears first in the statutory order. Services provided to a recipient outside India qualified as exports without service tax. Before 14 May 2015, reimbursable expenses could not be included in taxable value under Rule 5, which was held ultra vires to that extent; Section 67 was subsequently amended. A debtors reconciliation that includes service tax in billings but omits corresponding tax receipts does not establish additional consideration; Revenue bears the burden of proof. Extended limitation requires an established statutory ground: incorrect self-assessment or non-payment alone does not establish wilful suppression or intent to evade, particularly where returns were filed and information was available in records.

Reimbursed diesel costs do not form part of the taxable value of services where the service provider procures the diesel as agent for the recipients, the diesel remains their property, and reimbursement is separate from service charges. Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 links the gross amount charged to the taxable service provided. Rule 5 extends beyond that statutory mandate when it brings such reimbursements into taxable value. The exclusion applies where reimbursement is for goods procured on a recipient's behalf and is not consideration for the service provided.

The requirement for a pre-deposit is central to whether an appeal was correctly dismissed for non-payment. The dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for verification of whether the required deposit had been paid. No final finding was made on payment, leaving that question to be verified on remittal.

Material beyond suspicion supported the attachment of bank funds as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It included the managing director's recorded statement and an admitted amount payable to an entity controlled by the principal accused. The entity had not pursued recovery, while the appellant sought release of the funds for transfer to it. Describing the funds as working capital conflicted with the admission that they were payable to the entity. The funds were treated as proceeds of crime involved in money laundering.

Rights issues to non-residents depend on existing shares having been acquired and held in compliance with foreign-exchange regulations, including the requirement to apply for permission for the initial acquisition. Before an inquiry, the adjudicating authority must form an opinion; recorded reasons must be supplied when requested following objections to the initial notice. Penalty proportionality may be assessed in light of transactions conducted through banking channels without suppression, the interval between acquisitions and the absence of action at the time of the initial acquisition.

In summary proceedings for admission of an insolvency application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the financial creditor bears the burden of establishing financial debt and default. The corporate debtor has no automatic right to compel production of requested documents before the admission hearing. The adjudicating authority may require documents necessary for effective adjudication and draw an adverse inference concerning documents legally required to be produced. An unrestricted pre-admission inquiry would resemble a civil suit.

Recall jurisdiction is distinct from review and permits reopening a final order only on recognised grounds, including patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, a court mistake prejudicing a party, or failure to serve or represent a necessary party. Recall cannot substitute for review or an unexercised appeal, and does not permit reassessment of a technical report merely to reopen a reasoned order that has attained finality.

Insolvency appeals must be filed within 30 days under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, subject to a further maximum of 15 days for sufficient cause. Rule 22 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 requires a certified copy, while exemption under Rule 14 is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right. The obligation to apply for a certified copy within limitation is not confined to appeals seeking exclusion of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. An appeal filed without a certified copy is incompetent where the copy was not sought within limitation and no valid exemption was granted.

A creditor with an independent claim below the insolvency threshold is not entitled to intervene in another creditor's insolvency or settlement-withdrawal proceeding where its independent rights are unaffected. The need for the creditor's presence for effective adjudication and the effect on its rights are material to intervention under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Intervention confers a right to be heard, not an independent right to advance pleadings or claim relief. The settlement binds its parties, while the independent creditor may pursue its claim through appropriate civil proceedings.

The possessor bears the burden of proving that gold or its manufactures are not smuggled when seizure is based on reasonable belief under the Customs Act. Credible invoices, stock records and supplier statements supporting lawful local acquisition may shift the evidential burden to customs authorities. Incomplete identification of bullion and inadequate investigation can undermine an allegation of smuggled origin. Confiscation of currency as sale proceeds requires evidence linking it to smuggled goods; concealment of cash alone does not establish that link.

Provisional-release security for seized perishable goods must be proportionate, balancing revenue protection against the risk of deterioration and taking account of the bond and available documentary evidence. Where a full-value bond and certificates of origin were available, the bank guarantee was reduced to 20% of the duty involved, with the bond retained. Origin and duty entitlement remain subject to investigation and adjudication.

Penalties for handling import documents require proof of knowledge of the offending nature of goods or their misdeclaration; repeated document handling alone does not establish that knowledge. Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 addresses acts or omissions that render goods liable to confiscation, including abetment, while Section 114AA addresses knowing or intentional use of materially false documents. Verification of document authenticity or consignment contents is not ordinarily required.

Section 123 of the Customs Act places the burden on the possessor or claimant to prove that gold seized under a reasonable belief of smuggling is not smuggled. Undisputed purchase invoices and trading records establishing a matching supply shift the evidentiary burden to customs authorities to investigate and rebut that explanation. Courier statements and delivery records can support the supply link. Foreign origin alone does not establish smuggling, since bullion can enter domestic circulation through authorised channels. Unrebutted evidence of a matching domestic purchase can therefore undermine seizure and confiscation based on foreign origin.

Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits provisional release of seized goods subject to conditions. Cloud point alone is insufficient to establish the nature of distillate oil cargo, and the test reports did not definitively establish that the oil was restricted diesel. End-use certification and a bond provide safeguards for release. The bank guarantee condition is set aside, with the guarantee to be returned upon submission of all end-use certificates and a bond.

Under Sections 110 and 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving that seized gold is not smuggled shifts to the possessor only when reasonable belief at seizure is supported by objective material rather than suspicion. The absence of discernible foreign markings and the availability of similar purity in the domestic market are relevant considerations. Retracted and general statements lacking independent corroboration were insufficient to establish smuggling where Section 138B requirements were not met. Purchase invoices, stock records, bank payment and a refining voucher can support domestic procurement; differences in invoice layouts do not necessarily affect material transaction particulars.

Setting aside a customs broker's licence revocation does not automatically extinguish a G-card holder's penalty liability, which depends on the holder's own conduct. The holder independently filed documents without informing the F-card holder and failed to verify KYC copies against the originals, which did not match. Physical verification of the importer's address was not required. The penalty remained payable but was reduced because it was excessive in light of the holder's salary and financial circumstances, including family medical treatment.

A difference in tariff classification alone does not justify denying customs exemption for qualifying capital goods covered by an unaltered EPCG authorisation. The exemption notification adopts the Foreign Trade Policy definition of capital goods, which refers to their use in manufacture or production. The spools were described in both the authorisation and the bill of entry, and their inclusion in the negative list was not alleged. Customs neither sought clarification from the authorising authority nor obtained modification or annulment of the authorisation. The classification difference does not warrant a duty demand, penalty or redemption fine.

Arm's-length remuneration of an associated enterprise leaves no further profits attributable to it even if it constitutes a dependent agency permanent establishment, where the remuneration accounts for relevant functions and risks. An advance pricing agreement under section 92CC binds the applicant and revenue authority for covered transactions and years; the unilateral agreement covering marketing support services did not bind the foreign assessee. Under section 144C, a direction to comment on admitted additional evidence in the final assessment order, without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut those comments, violates natural justice.