Charges collected by an autonomous body for SOFTEX certification, no-objection certificates and export-related assistance constitute taxable Business Support Service when they directly facilitate recipients' business operations. Governmental authorisation or exclusive performance does not make an activity sovereign; exclusion applies only to compulsory statutory levies paid into the Government account, not charges retained by the service provider. Failure to declare such taxable receipts in service tax returns, despite registration and tax compliance for other services, supports invocation of the extended limitation period. Continued failure to assess, disclose and pay tax may also sustain penalty.

Construction of independent residential houses on separate plots does not fall within Construction of Complex Service unless every statutory element of a residential complex is established, including more than twelve units, common areas and specified common facilities. Roads and open spaces transferred to a municipal authority do not, without more, establish those requirements. Contracts involving construction together with supply or transfer of materials require classification under the works contract service framework; a simpliciter demand under Construction of Complex Service is unsustainable. Extended limitation and penalties do not apply where departmental knowledge and earlier service-tax refunds demonstrate a bona fide interpretive dispute rather than suppression, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion.

Redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is addressed in determining amounts payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Although such fine may form part of recoverable arrears alongside excise duty, unpaid redemption fine does not make a declarant ineligible under the Scheme. A requirement to pay redemption fine before obtaining Scheme relief is inconsistent with the eligibility provisions. Redemption fine must therefore be excluded from the estimated payable amount, which requires recalculation without that component.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot justify unreasonably prolonged pre-trial detention when delay is not attributable to the accused and trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Article 21 protects personal liberty and the right to speedy trial independently of statutory custody thresholds. Constitutional excessiveness requires a contextual assessment of the possible sentence, trial stage and expected duration, the accused's role, and concrete risks of absconding, witness interference, or evidence tampering. Where investigation is complete and the prosecution relies mainly on secured documentary evidence, continued custody may become disproportionate, warranting regular bail despite statutory bail restrictions.

Mortgage priority in liquidation depends on the chronology and subsistence of security interests. An earlier second pari-passu charge may move into first priority after discharge of an earlier first mortgage, leaving a later simple mortgage subordinate under the rule that later interests are subject to prior vested rights. Non-registration of a charge does not create or extinguish the underlying security or improve a subsequent mortgagee's priority where notice exists. Valid assignments do not permit enforcement outside liquidation where no timely election to realise security is made; the security interest then becomes part of the liquidation estate. The Liquidator may administer the property and retain its title deeds.

IBC appellate review of an approved resolution plan is confined to statutory non-compliance, demonstrated prejudice, and material irregularity, without substituting the Committee of Creditors' commercial assessment. Suspended directors may challenge plan approval as aggrieved persons, but failure to supply plan materials does not invalidate approval absent prejudice, particularly where confidentiality requirements were unmet. A practising chartered accountant is not disqualified as a resolution applicant solely by professional status. CIRP can be withdrawn only through the prescribed Section 12A process; an uncompleted settlement does not halt it. Government claims not included in an approved plan are addressed by the clean-slate principle, and statutory dues lack automatic secured-creditor parity.

Pre-amendment insolvency disciplinary procedure required a show cause notice to follow a completed investigation, consideration of its report, and a prima facie opinion based on sufficient cause. Where action rests on material outside the investigation, the independent material must be identified and supplied to the insolvency professional. Procedural review of disciplinary action focuses on fairness rather than reassessment of merits. Relevant defences, a reasonably possible interpretation of committee composition rules, the temporal applicability of liquidation-cost requirements, and evidence explaining auction delays must be considered. Findings cannot rely on meetings or allegations beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Non-disclosure of material and failure to consider relevant circumstances vitiate disciplinary action.

Approved resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bind members and can validly extinguish pre-CIRP equity shareholding and consequential membership rights. Section 59 of the Companies Act provides a limited rectification remedy for entries or omissions made without sufficient cause; it cannot collaterally reopen an approved plan or revive extinguished shares. Membership in a share-capital company remains inseparable from shareholding, while post-implementation annual returns reflect restructured capital rather than continuity of cancelled holdings. Administrative register provisions and procedural rules create no independent substantive entitlement. Claims for replacement shares, compensation, interest, or mental-suffering damages inconsistent with plan finality fall outside rectification jurisdiction; the Code's overriding effect prevails over inconsistent company-law remedies.

Ministerial authorisation enabling the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to present proceedings approved by the Central Government does not amount to delegation of statutory discretion where the Government itself made the substantive decision. Under the Allocation of Business Rules and Transaction of Business Rules, an authorised officer may implement that decision without a notification delegating power under the Companies Act, 2013; proceedings instituted in the Union of India's name remain valid. Disgorgement, as an equitable remedy preventing retention of undue gains, is not confined to Section 212(14A). The statutory framework permits the Central Government to seek attachment and disgorgement through Sections 241(2), 242, 246 and 339.

Specific tariff coverage for Magnesia Carbon Bricks prevails over a residuary heading for mineral substances, preserving classification as refractory goods and eligibility for concessional basic customs duty. For imports before 1 January 2022, Chapter Note 1 did not exclude goods heated below 800 C from Chapter 69; the later exclusion applies only prospectively. HSN explanatory material cannot override unaligned Indian Customs Tariff wording, and the firing requirement does not apply to the relevant refractory headings. Correct classification and exemption declarations do not establish intentional misdeclaration, so a disputed claim alone cannot sustain confiscation or penalty.

Customs Broker licence revocation proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 must comply with natural justice where the show-cause notice and offence report rely on statements of F-Card and G-Card holders. Non-supply of those relied-upon statements, despite repeated requests, prevents the Customs Broker from effectively addressing, contradicting, or making submissions on the allegations. Fresh adjudication is required after furnishing the statements and providing a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and enquiry report.

Section 138B of the Customs Act permits statements to prove their contents only in prescribed circumstances. Retracted statements and statements of other persons cannot constitute legal evidence against a noticee when requested cross-examination of their makers is denied. Material concerning a broader smuggling syndicate does not, by itself, establish that particular seized gold was smuggled. Where no independent admissible evidence establishes the noticee's knowledge, receipt, refining, or involvement in smuggled gold, confiscation under Section 111(d) and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) lack a sustainable evidentiary basis. Denial of cross-examination also breaches principles of natural justice.

Customs-duty exemption applies to goods imported into an SEZ unit for authorised operations under the SEZ Act. Duty becomes chargeable only when goods are removed from the SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area, using the rate and valuation applicable at removal. Goods retained in an FTWZ for intended authorised operations cannot be subjected to a differential-duty computation merely to require a bank guarantee for provisional release. A bank guarantee based on such duty is therefore unsustainable; provisional release may instead be secured by a bond equal to the value of the goods. Customs duty arises upon clearance of manufactured goods from the SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area after authorised operations.

Low-ethoxylated non-ionic fatty alcohol ethoxylates fall outside the tariff category for organic surface-active agents where they do not satisfy the cumulative Chapter 34 water-solubility and surface-tension conditions. A product must form a transparent or translucent liquid or stable emulsion without separation of insoluble matter and reduce surface tension to the prescribed level. Chemical testing showed a translucent liquid separating into two layers, failing the required water-solubility condition. Water-insoluble surface-active products are therefore classified as miscellaneous chemical products under tariff items 3824 9090/3824 9990 rather than under tariff item 3402 1300, rendering the consequential differential duty, confiscation, interest and penalties unsustainable.

Voluntary disclosure and rectification of an omitted supplier invoice shortly after customs clearance can establish a bona fide declaration error rather than duty evasion. Where the importer seeks reassessment and pays differential duty before departmental detection, and the supplier's communication supports the inadvertent omission, a residual customs penalty is not justified without evidence of wilful non-compliance or intent to evade duty. Penalty under the residual provision is therefore unsustainable in the absence of mens rea.

Notified gold under the Customs Act places the burden on persons in possession to establish lawful procurement and transportation. Absence of licit documents at interception, coupled with an ownership claim and supporting material produced only after issuance of a show-cause notice, failed to discharge that burden where the alleged owner had not claimed the goods during investigation. Absolute confiscation was therefore sustained. Carriers transporting foreign-origin gold without lawful documents remained liable to penalty. Penalty against the person alleged to have arranged the transaction was justified for misleading the investigation, but its quantum was reduced.

Personal penalties for alleged aiding and abetting of gold smuggling under Section 112(a) require proof beyond suspicion. Statements recorded under Section 108 may be substantive material, but accomplice statements require corroboration in material particulars under Section 114 illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence Act. Co-accused statements, call-data material and alleged use of a syndicate member's SIM card did not establish complicity where no incriminating material or SIM card was recovered and the SIM usage remained unverified. Calls reporting concealed gold supported the official's explanation. The alleged involvement in smuggling was therefore not proved, rendering the personal penalties unsustainable.

Customs classification of mixed lots of polyester knitted fabric must be determined by the actual composition of each imported consignment. Reclassification from the accepted tariff entry requires cogent technical evidence, such as laboratory testing, establishing that the alternative entry applies; a later change of view or a general description of assorted fabrics is insufficient. In the absence of such evidence, the accepted classification and related concessional-duty treatment continue. Where the dispute is interpretational and no deliberate suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty is established, penalty for misdeclaration is not attracted.

Prospective operation of an amendment prevents its use against imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment commenced, unless retrospective effect is expressly provided. An amendment effective from 15 June 2026 therefore cannot be invoked to refuse consideration of provisional release under the Customs Act for such imports. Provisional release must be considered under the applicable law and granted on compliance with imposed conditions.

Provisional release of imported goods may be secured without requiring a bank guarantee approaching twice the duty liability where Revenue's interests are adequately protected through proportionate safeguards. Payment of duty on the declared value, coupled with a personal bond for any additional duty ultimately determined, provides sufficient protection pending adjudication. The bank-guarantee requirement was set aside, and release was directed subject to payment of applicable declared-value duty and execution of a personal bond for any balance duty.