Issues: Whether notice-period recovery from employees who exit employment without serving the stipulated notice constitutes a declared service of tolerating an act under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Taxability requires an activity carried out by one person for another for consideration. Notice-period recovery merely permits an employee's sudden exit on payment of the stipulated amount; it does not evidence an agreement by the employer to tolerate an act as a taxable service. The employment arrangement, including the consequence of premature exit, does not result in rendition of service by either employer or employee.

Conclusion: Notice-period recovery is not consideration for a service of tolerating an act or situation and is not taxable under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issues: (i) Whether the training provided qualified for exemption as vocational training under Notification No. 24/2004-ST; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax.

Issue (i): Whether the training provided qualified for exemption as vocational training under Notification No. 24/2004-ST.

Analysis: The notification exempted commercial training or coaching supplied by a vocational training institute imparting skills enabling trainees to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly after training. The undisputed training in construction-related skills enabled candidates to undergo competency testing and obtain overseas employment through manpower agencies. The subsequent narrowing of the definition by Notification No. 3/2010-ST operated prospectively. The exclusion concerning certificates recognised by law did not defeat the notification benefit for the relevant earlier period.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to vocational-training exemption up to 27.02.2010; any service-tax liability could arise only in accordance with the applicable law thereafter and within the normal period.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax.

Analysis: The assessee obtained registration and voluntarily paid service tax in December 2008, while claiming exemption on a bona fide interpretation of the vocational-training notification. Revenue did not dispute the payment or establish an intent to evade tax. Fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression necessary for the extended limitation period was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was invalid; service tax, if otherwise payable, could be recovered only for the normal period, and penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim for the pre-amendment period was accepted, recovery was confined to the normal limitation period, and penal consequences were eliminated.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period and penalties cannot be sustained where the assessee's exemption claim is bona fide, material facts and voluntary tax payment are undisputed, and no intent to evade tax is established.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on the disputed services was admissible under the definition of input service for the periods before and after 01.04.2011; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of inadmissible credit; (iii) Whether interest was payable on wrongly availed credit; (iv) Whether penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on the disputed services was admissible under the definition of input service for the periods before and after 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Before 01.04.2011, the definition covered activities relating to business and had a broad ambit; the disputed services merited favourable consideration under that wider definition. After 01.04.2011, admissibility required a proximate and integral nexus with the output service and was subject to express exclusions for services primarily used for employees' personal consumption. Cleaning of business premises, insurance for cardholders against fraudulent transactions and card theft, convention, event management and mandap keeper services were connected with the business or output services. Club and association benefits, health and fitness services, outdoor catering, rent-a-cab, tour operator services and employee-related insurance auxiliary services were either not shown to have the requisite nexus or fell within the exclusion relating to personal employee consumption.

Conclusion: Credit was admissible for the pre-01.04.2011 period and, post-01.04.2011, for cleaning, cardholder insurance, convention, event management and mandap keeper services; credit on club and association, health and fitness, outdoor catering, rent-a-cab, tour operator and employee-related insurance auxiliary services was inadmissible. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of inadmissible credit.

Analysis: Eligibility of input-service credit depended upon the nature of each service, the applicable version of the definition and divergent judicial and administrative interpretation. The dispute was bona fide and interpretational. No positive evidence established fraud, wilful misstatement, deliberate suppression or intent to evade payment.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and recovery was confined to the normal period. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on wrongly availed credit.

Analysis: Following the substitution of the expression concerning credit "taken or utilized wrongly" with "taken and utilized wrongly", interest is attracted only where wrongly availed credit was also utilized. The asserted sufficiency of the closing CENVAT balance required factual verification against the relevant ST-3 returns.

Conclusion: Interest is payable only if verification establishes that the credit was both wrongly taken and utilized, evidenced by the net CENVAT balance falling below the demand. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute involved a bona fide interpretation of the input-service definition, and recovery was restricted to the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: Penalties were not imposable and were set aside. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand requires fresh quantification confined to the normal period, with verification of utilization for determining interest, while penalties remain excluded.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-01.04.2011, input-service credit requires an integral nexus with taxable output services and remains unavailable for services primarily used for employees' personal consumption; an interpretational credit dispute without proof of deliberate suppression cannot attract the extended limitation period or penalties.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge only 50% of the service tax under Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 for taxable works contract services supplied to the PWD; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of service tax.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge only 50% of the service tax under Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 for taxable works contract services supplied to the PWD.

Analysis: The taxable receipts concerned works contract services admittedly liable to service tax. The precedent applied recognised that works contract services supplied to the PWD qualify for the reverse-charge allocation under Serial No. 9 of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., under which the service provider bears 50% of the tax liability.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. and is liable for only 50% of the service tax on the relevant taxable works contract services, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of service tax.

Analysis: The appellant was aware of the taxability of the relevant services but neither paid the tax nor informed the departmental authorities, and had not obtained registration or filed the prescribed returns. The precedent relied upon also sustained invocation of the extended period in comparable circumstances; the decisions cited by the appellant were distinguishable.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation is valid, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxable demand must be recomputed after extending the reverse-charge benefit, while interest and penalty remain leviable on the recomputed liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxable works contract services are provided to the PWD in circumstances covered by Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., the provider is liable for only its 50% reverse-charge share; non-payment and non-disclosure despite knowledge of taxability justify the extended limitation period.

Issues: (i) Whether Sulphuric Acid cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 by following the Central Excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 can be treated as "exempted goods" within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of the CCR, 2004 and attract obligations under Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004? (ii) Whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal was sustainable despite earlier Final Orders in the assessee's own case on identical facts, merely because one such order had been challenged before the High Court? (iii) Whether the demands, interest and penalties were sustainable on limitation?

Issue (i): Whether Sulphuric Acid cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 by following the Central Excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 can be treated as "exempted goods" within the meaning of Rule 2(d) of the CCR, 2004 and attract obligations under Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004?

Analysis: The notification grants a transaction-specific and conditional duty-free clearance, contingent on compliance with the statutory end-use procedure. Sulphuric Acid retains its dutiable character because the same product is also cleared on payment of duty. The prescribed procedure preserves revenue safeguards and permits recovery upon breach by the recipient; consequently, such conditional removals are not equivalent to clearances of inherently exempt goods. The principle applicable to conditional Chapter X-type clearances was held applicable to the notification scheme.

Conclusion: Such conditional clearances are not exempted goods under Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Rule 6 obligations, including credit reversal or payment under Rule 6(3), do not arise. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned Order-in-Appeal was sustainable despite earlier Final Orders in the assessee's own case on identical facts, merely because one such order had been challenged before the High Court?

Analysis: Earlier Tribunal orders concerning the same assessee, product, notification and legal question consistently excluded the application of Rule 6. No factual distinction, statutory amendment, contrary superior-court ruling, or stay order was shown. Mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not suspend the operative force of the decision under challenge.

Conclusion: The earlier Tribunal orders remained binding and had to be followed; the impugned order was unsustainable. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demands, interest and penalties were sustainable on limitation?

Analysis: The clearances were made through the prescribed statutory procedure and disclosed in ER-1 returns. The Department had access to the relevant records, and the dispute was interpretative and repeatedly litigated. The material did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression necessary for the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable, and the demands were independently time-barred; consequential interest and penalties could not survive. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Conditional, end-use based duty-free clearances of an otherwise dutiable product do not trigger the Rule 6 mechanism, and consistent operative precedent on identical facts must be applied.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional, transaction-specific duty-free removal under a statutory end-use procedure does not render an otherwise dutiable product "exempted goods" for applying the Cenvat credit reversal mechanism.

Issues: Whether Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh is classifiable as lemonade under Tariff Item 2202 10 20 or as a fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink under Tariff Item 2202 90 20.

Analysis: The Larger Bench ruling governing the identical product was applied. That ruling treats beverages containing lime or lemon juice of not less than 5% and total soluble solids of not less than 10% as fruit juice based drinks, based on common parlance and the applicable food regulations. The Revenue's proposed classification as lemonade was therefore inconsistent with the binding tariff-classification principle.

Conclusion: Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 as a fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A beverage satisfying the prescribed fruit-content and soluble-solids criteria is classifiable as a fruit juice based drink rather than lemonade.

Issues: (i) Whether duty paid through CENVAT credit, instead of cash or PLA, could be demanded again where duty was paid belatedly; (ii) Whether equivalent penalty under Rule 25 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether duty paid through CENVAT credit, instead of cash or PLA, could be demanded again where duty was paid belatedly.

Analysis: Payment of duty through CENVAT credit was valid and could not be required to be paid again in cash or through PLA. A delay in payment attracted only interest for the period of default.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable only for interest of Rs. 22,457 and not for a fresh cash payment of the duty.

Issue (ii): Whether equivalent penalty under Rule 25 was sustainable.

Analysis: There was no fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The earlier appellate order had also treated the contravention as warranting penalty under Rule 27 rather than Rule 25.

Conclusion: The equivalent penalty under Rule 25 was not sustainable; the assessee was liable to a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 27.

Final Conclusion: Delayed discharge of duty through valid CENVAT credit use attracts interest, while absence of culpable intent confines the penalty to the prescribed procedural penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty validly paid through CENVAT credit cannot be re-demanded in cash merely because of delayed payment; absent fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty, an equivalent penalty is not imposable.

Issues: (i) Whether material requisitioned by the first appellate authority under its statutory inquiry power could be treated as additional evidence barred by Rule 46A; (ii) Whether the educational institution qualified for exemption as substantially financed by the Government; (iii) Whether the addition for cash deposits was sustainable without reconciliation of the deposits with the books and supporting records.

Issue (i): Whether material requisitioned by the first appellate authority under its statutory inquiry power could be treated as additional evidence barred by Rule 46A.

Analysis: Section 250(4) independently empowers the appellate authority to make or direct further inquiry for effective disposal of an appeal. Rule 46A regulates evidence voluntarily tendered by an assessee, while Rule 46A(4) preserves the appellate authority's power to call for documents or witnesses. Material specifically called for by the appellate authority cannot therefore be equated with voluntary additional evidence, and no prejudice from the inquiry was established.

Conclusion: The material called for under Section 250(4) was not inadmissible additional evidence under Rule 46A; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the educational institution qualified for exemption as substantially financed by the Government.

Analysis: Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) requires that the institution exist solely for educational purposes without a profit motive and be wholly or substantially financed by the Government. Rule 2BBB treats Government grants exceeding fifty per cent of total receipts as substantial financing. The verified records showed Government grants exceeding fifty per cent of total receipts, and there was no dispute that the institution pursued only educational objects without profit motive. Registration under Section 12A or Section 12AB was not a condition for this independent exemption.

Conclusion: The institution satisfied Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and was entitled to exemption; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition for cash deposits was sustainable without reconciliation of the deposits with the books and supporting records.

Analysis: Although the explanation was that the deposits represented fees, arrears, other receipts and re-deposited withdrawals recorded in the books, there was no clear factual finding reconciling the cash deposits with the cash book, bank entries and supporting evidence. The issue required factual verification.

Conclusion: The deletion of the cash-deposit addition was set aside and the issue was restored for fresh examination; this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) remains available, while the source and reconciliation of cash deposits require fresh factual determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence called for by the appellate authority under its independent statutory inquiry power is not voluntary additional evidence governed by Rule 46A, and an educational institution is substantially Government-financed where the prescribed grant-to-receipts threshold is met.

Issues: Whether cash payments towards credit-card dues were satisfactorily explained by cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank account and income returned from contract business under presumptive taxation.

Analysis: The bank statement disclosed frequent cash withdrawals sufficient to cover the credit-card payments, and the Revenue did not identify any specific mismatch or establish that the withdrawn cash had been used elsewhere. A direct date-wise correlation between every withdrawal and payment was unnecessary where availability of cash throughout the year was established. Further, having accepted the income returned from contract business under presumptive taxation, the Revenue could not reject the explanation that bank credits and consequent withdrawals were attributable to that business. Taxing the payments sourced from already taxed business receipts would result in double taxation.

Conclusion: The cash payments of Rs. 10,90,100 towards credit-card dues stood satisfactorily explained; the addition as unexplained money under Section 69A was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether availment of Cenvat credit in statutory returns violated Condition No. 25 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE; (ii) Whether non-utilisation or subsequent reversal/lapse of credit restored eligibility for concessional duty; (iii) Whether the differential-duty demand, interest and penalty, including invocation of the extended period, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether availment of Cenvat credit in statutory returns violated Condition No. 25 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE.

Analysis: Condition No. 25 required that no Cenvat credit of duty on inputs or service tax on input services be taken. The condition concerns the act of taking credit, rather than its utilisation. Credit recorded and availed in ST-3 and ER-1 returns constituted availment under the statutory scheme. As an exemption condition, the requirement was subject to strict construction and the claimant bore the burden of proving compliance.

Conclusion: Availment of Cenvat credit violated Condition No. 25 and disentitled the assessee to the concessional duty rate.

Issue (ii): Whether non-utilisation or subsequent reversal/lapse of credit restored eligibility for concessional duty.

Analysis: Non-utilisation did not negate the completed act of taking credit. Migration of credit during transition to GST, its lapse, or a later reversal could not retrospectively cure the breach that arose when credit was simultaneously availed with the concessional excise-duty benefit. The decisions concerning reversal of credit were inapplicable to the strict eligibility condition governing the exemption.

Conclusion: Non-utilisation, later reversal, or lapse of credit did not restore the assessee's eligibility for concessional duty.

Issue (iii): Whether the differential-duty demand, interest and penalty, including invocation of the extended period, were sustainable.

Analysis: The discrepancy was detected in audit, and filing returns did not excuse wrongful availment of the concession despite prohibited credit availment. The extended period was consequently available. Upon the resulting short payment of duty, interest followed under the statutory provision, and penalty was warranted for availing the concessional rate despite ineligibility.

Conclusion: The differential-duty demand, extended-period invocation, interest and penalty were sustainable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concessional excise-duty exemption was unavailable where Cenvat credit had been taken during the relevant period, and the consequential fiscal liabilities remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification requires that no Cenvat credit be taken, recording and availing credit itself breaches the condition; non-utilisation, reversal, lapse, or subsequent GST transition cannot cure that breach retrospectively.

Issues: Challenge to the Orders-in-Original for the financial years 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and to the impugned order dated 25.06.2026.

Outcome: Notice issued and operation of the challenged orders stayed until the next hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether an excess input tax credit demand could be confirmed on a basis different from that specified in the show cause notice; (ii) Whether payment of tax under the IGST head by mistake attracted Section 77 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether an excess input tax credit demand could be confirmed on a basis different from that specified in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The notice compared input tax credit availed in GSTR-3B with the annual return in GSTR-9, whereas the impugned order compared auto-populated GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B. The figures adopted in the order also differed from those in the reply. The changed basis was not put to the petitioner for response, requiring fresh consideration consistent with natural justice.

Conclusion: The excess input tax credit issue requires reconsideration and is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment of tax under the IGST head by mistake attracted Section 77 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 77 applies where IGST is paid under the mistaken belief that a supply is inter-State. The remittance under the IGST head was not made on such a mistaken characterisation of the supply. The amount paid may be considered for appropriation towards CGST and SGST liability, with a refund application if procedurally required.

Conclusion: Section 77 is inapplicable to the mistaken remittance, and the short-payment issue requires reconsideration in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The determinations on the two contested issues cannot stand and must be freshly decided after affording a reasonable opportunity; the related bank-account attachment stands raised.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand cannot be sustained on a factual basis not proposed in the show cause notice, and the statutory mechanism for tax paid under a mistaken inter-State characterisation does not apply to a mere erroneous payment under the IGST head.

Issues: Whether deletion of the disallowance of loss on sale of shares gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had followed its decision for the preceding assessment year concerning similar share transactions, which had already been confirmed. The earlier decision accepted the transactions as genuine on the basis of documentary evidence, with no contrary material produced to displace that evidence. The same reasoning applied to the year under consideration.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from deletion of the disallowance of share-sale loss; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether loans or advances received by a public trust from a company in which its managing trustee held 50% shareholding could be assessed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

Analysis: The deeming fiction under Section 2(22)(e) enlarges the definition of dividend but does not deem a non-shareholder recipient to be a shareholder. Its purpose is to tax disguised distributions of accumulated profits in the hands of shareholders. Explanation 3 defines a concern as a Hindu undivided family, firm, association of persons, body of individuals or company; a public trust does not fall within that specified definition. The trust was not a shareholder of the lending company, and the Revenue did not establish that it acted as a conduit for a loan obtained or used for the individual benefit of its trustee. The position was distinguishable from a Hindu undivided family falling within Explanation 3 and having the requisite shareholder connection.

Conclusion: The loans or advances received by the public trust could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e); the reopening proceedings founded on that premise were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit availed on supplementary invoices issued by service providers is barred under Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where no show-cause notice or adjudicated recoverable service-tax demand against the service providers is established.

Analysis: Rule 9(1)(bb) restricts credit only where the additional service tax has become recoverable from the service provider because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. A recoverable demand requires initiation of proceedings and confirmation of the service-tax demand; voluntary payment of tax, interest and penalty following investigation, without evidence of a show-cause notice or adjudicated demand against the service provider, does not satisfy that requirement. Supplementary invoices are otherwise prescribed documents for availing Cenvat credit.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices was admissible; Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was inapplicable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether horticulture, landscaping, beautification, road-development and composite works were taxable as Maintenance or Repair Service; (ii) Whether the benefits of Notification No. 12/2003-ST and Notification No. 24/2009-ST read with Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012 were available; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable; (iv) Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether horticulture, landscaping, beautification, road-development and composite works were taxable as Maintenance or Repair Service.

Analysis: Development of green belts, plantation, landscaping, beautification, road laying, paving and allied civil activities involve creation or improvement of assets and are distinct from preservation or upkeep of an existing asset. The contracts were also composite contracts involving material and labour, which could not be artificially vivisected for levy under the stated taxable category during the relevant period. Aggregate confirmation without segregating taxable and non-taxable components was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The activities were not liable to Service Tax under Maintenance or Repair Service in the manner alleged, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefits of Notification No. 12/2003-ST and Notification No. 24/2009-ST read with Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012 were available.

Analysis: The value of materials sold under composite contracts was eligible for exclusion upon verification of documentary evidence. The road-related component was exempt under Notification No. 24/2009-ST, with retrospective exemption under Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the notification benefits wherever applicable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: Registration with the Department, execution of contracts for a Government undertaking, and reflection of transactions in the books did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful suppression, or intent to evade tax. A dispute on classification, valuation, or exemption alone could not support invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was wrongly invoked, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Analysis: The record did not establish fraud, collusion, deliberate suppression, or intent to evade Service Tax.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax liability, interest and penalties founded on the impugned classification and extended limitation could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Developmental and composite works cannot be taxed as maintenance or repair merely because they concern existing premises; and, absent wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, the extended limitation period and consequential penalties are unavailable.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of alleged short-paid service tax on the basis of an audit report when an earlier notice on the identical issue had been issued for a previous period; (ii) Whether the service-tax demands relating to business auxiliary service, renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods were sustainable on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of alleged short-paid service tax on the basis of an audit report when an earlier notice on the identical issue had been issued for a previous period.

Analysis: Service-tax returns are furnished under the self-assessment regime, and scrutiny, call for records and best-judgment assessment mechanisms permit the departmental officer to raise a demand within the normal limitation period. A mere discrepancy between financial statements and returns does not itself establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or intent to evade tax. Since an earlier notice for short payment on the identical issue had already invoked the extended period, a subsequent notice founded on an audit report could not again invoke that period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the service-tax demands relating to business auxiliary service, renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods were sustainable on merits.

Analysis: The amount treated as consideration for business auxiliary service related to supply of goods supported by separate invoices and was not taxable as that service. The portion of immovable property let out for residential use was not liable to service tax. The reconciliation of turnover, taxable value and tax payments also showed that no further liability arose under supply of tangible goods service.

Conclusion: None of the three demands was sustainable on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability, interest and penalties could not survive either on limitation or on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period cannot be founded merely on belated audit-based scrutiny of returns, particularly where the department had earlier issued a notice on the identical issue, unless the statutory ingredients of deliberate evasion are established.

Issues: (i) Whether unjust enrichment applies where the contract price is inclusive of service tax; (ii) Whether unjust enrichment applies where service tax was separately invoiced but was not paid by the service recipient.

Issue (i): Whether unjust enrichment applies where the contract price is inclusive of service tax.

Analysis: Under the refund regime, a claimant must establish that the tax burden has not been passed on. Where the agreed contract value is inclusive of all taxes and no separate service-tax amount is recoverable from the recipient, any variation in tax liability does not alter the contracted consideration. The service provider consequently bears the tax incidence.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment does not apply; the assessee has borne the incidence of service tax and is entitled to refund.

Issue (ii): Whether unjust enrichment applies where service tax was separately invoiced but was not paid by the service recipient.

Analysis: The chartered accountant's certificate and the records established that, although service tax was shown separately in invoices, the service recipient did not remit that amount. The tax was therefore borne by the service provider rather than passed on to the recipient.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment does not apply; the assessee has borne the incidence of service tax and is entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: Refund of service tax paid on the non-taxable services is legally available because the tax incidence was not passed to the service recipients.

Ratio Decidendi: A service-tax refund is not defeated by unjust enrichment where the contractual price is tax-inclusive, or where separately invoiced tax has not been recovered from the recipient, provided the claimant establishes that it bore the tax incidence.

Issues: Whether central excise duty could be demanded on the alleged difference between the assessable value reported in the ER-1 return for the Sanchor unit and sales reflected in the consolidated balance sheet.

Analysis: The demand compared the ER-1 figures of the Sanchor unit with consolidated financial-statement sales that included the Mumbai unit. The reconciliation established that the units undertook inter-unit consignment transactions and that the Sanchor unit's sales reported in the ER-1 return exceeded its sales reflected in the financial statements. Accordingly, no unreconciled difference in assessable value remained.

Conclusion: The duty demand founded on the alleged short reporting in the ER-1 return is unsustainable, and the consequential penalty is not imposable.

Issues: Whether a review petition repeating grounds and prayers already considered in prior miscellaneous applications is maintainable.

Analysis: The grounds and reliefs sought had already been raised and considered in the earlier miscellaneous applications, which were dismissed after hearing both sides, with a clarification limiting the effect of the earlier order to the peculiar facts of the case. The repeated request for identical relief was therefore misconceived and without merit.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and was dismissed as defective and on merits.