Finality of proceedings: tax assessments cannot be reopened due to another taxpayer's favourable decision without recall in the same case.
Reopening tax assessment proceedings based on a favourable decision in another assessee's case is ordinarily not permitted; a final order in an assessee's own case remains effective until it is specifically recalled or set aside in that same proceeding.

Finality of unappealed decisions: unchallenged jurisdictional rulings bind the parties until lawfully reversed.
A jurisdictional court's unappealed ruling, even if incorrect, becomes final and binding between the parties and remains so until reversed by a higher forum or other statutory remedy; thus unchallenged classificatory or determinative decisions must be obeyed in subsequent proceedings unless lawfully set aside.

Finality of administrative orders follows when no appeal is filed, and remand directions limit reconsideration scope.
An administrative order attains finality where an entitled party does not file an appeal against a Tribunal disposition; remand orders limit reconsideration to the specific issues directed by the Tribunal, and parties who do not contest merits before the Tribunal forfeit the ability to re argue those merits, so that authorities acting on remand cannot expand review beyond the remand directions.

Right of appeal is not inherent; it exists only when statute creates and defines it, including scope and procedure.
The right of appeal is not inherent but is a statutory construct: appellate existence, scope and procedure must be authorized by the creating provision; omissions in citation do not automatically bar an otherwise maintainable appeal; absence of an appellate provision does not prevent an order from becoming final.

Reason to believe requires subjective belief grounded in material evidence, preventing arbitrary or capricious searches.
The concept of reason to believe requires that a subjective opinion be based on material on the record, not arbitrary or whimsical; it must be held in good faith and courts may test whether the reasons have a rational and relevant connection to the formation of belief, excluding extraneous considerations.

Inclusive pricing does not establish passing on of tax burden; composite invoices alone do not prove unjust enrichment.
Showing a composite price on an invoice does not, by itself, establish that the supplier passed the tax burden to customers or realized unjust enrichment; where prices remained unchanged after a tax was imposed, inclusive pricing alone is insufficient evidence that any element of tax was added to the price, and proof of an added tax component is required to infer passing on of the tax.

Doctrine of unjust enrichment excluded where a refund arises only after finalisation of provisional assessment.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refund claims that arise after the finalisation of provisional assessments; refunds or recoveries consequent on the final determination of duty liability fall outside the interim statutory refund framework and are not barred by unjust enrichment objections.

Unjust enrichment doctrine not bar to refund of duty paid under protest; provisional assessments preserve refund entitlement.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar refund claims for duty paid under protest; recoveries or refunds consequent on final determination of duty liability fall outside bars that would deny restitution. Provisional assessments and unresolved price and classification lists render clearances provisional, supporting the taxpayer's entitlement to have refund claims adjudicated on the basis of final liability rather than dismissed as struck by unjust enrichment.

Admissibility of electronic records: computerised data on CD can support service tax refund claims and show no transfer of tax burden.
Data on compact disc (CD) can be admissible evidence for service tax refund claims where it constitutes computerised records recognised under the Information Technology Act and the Service Tax Rules. Such electronic records may also be used to prove that the incidence of service tax was not transferred to another party (absence of unjust enrichment), provided the data meets the statutory criteria for admissible computerised evidence and forms part of the assessee's maintained electronic records.

Limitation on refund filings: time-bar inapplicable where payments were not service tax and were excess realisations.
Limitation under Section 11B(1) applies only to refund claims of a duty of excise and interest; payments not constituting service tax or lawful excise levy are outside that bar and may be refunded. Judicial authorities (M/s Natraj and Venkat Associates; ITC Ltd.) recognise that excess realisations beyond what the statute permits are realisations outside the Act and thus not subject to the statutory limitation on excise refunds.

Limitation on service tax refunds: late claims are barred unless tax was paid under protest.
Refunds of amounts paid as service tax are governed by the statutory limitation provisions; where payments were credited to the service tax account and the claimant acknowledged applicability of the limitation rule, a refund claim filed after the limitation period is barred unless the tax was paid under protest.

Appellate authority power to increase penalties is limited; payment of tax and interest can justify mitigation of penalty.
Appellate authority does not have power to increase or impose a fresh penalty; payment of tax and interest that neutralises pecuniary advantage is relevant for mitigation, and taxpayer status and proportionality are material in assessing whether a revised penalty is unduly harsh under the statutory penalty framework.

Penalty minimums prohibited from reduction: statutory scheme prevents lowering prescribed service tax penalty through discretionary provisions.
Penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be reduced below the statutory minimum by invoking section 80; a conjoint reading of the provisions shows no discretion to levy or reduce a penalty below the prescribed floor, and appellate bodies and tribunals cannot read such power into the statutory scheme.

Penalty under Section 76 cannot be reduced below the statutory minimum; authority's discretion is confined to the prescribed range.
Section 76 penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 confines the authority to a legislatively prescribed minimum-to-maximum range; authorities lack power to reduce the penalty below the statutory minimum per day of default, and courts have rejected construing any additional discretion into the provision as that would amount to rewriting the statute.

Service tax deposit obligations do not arise where tax was not invoiced or collected, limiting unjust enrichment claims.
Where no invoice was raised and no amount was specifically collected as service tax from recipients, the statutory duty to deposit such tax does not arise because there is no collected tax to be held on behalf of the Government, and absence of pass through means the legal condition for invoking unjust enrichment is not satisfied.

Deposit of collected service tax must be remitted even if small provider exempt; penalties apply for non-deposit.
Section 73A requires that service tax collected from customers be deposited with the Central Government even if the collector avails the small service provider exemption; tribunals have held that collection triggers an obligatory deposit and failure to deposit and to file returns attracts penal action and enforcement for non-compliance.

Ignorance of law or illiteracy can undermine findings of willful suppression, affecting the validity of tax demand and penalties.
Administrative demands and penalties based on alleged willful suppression of taxable services require supporting record evidence and must correspond to allegations in the show cause notice; where the record does not substantiate suppression and the allegation was not made in the notice, the resultant service tax demand and penalties are not sustainable.

Extended limitation period: not available where assessee had bona fide belief or doubt about service tax liability.
Extended limitation cannot be invoked where the assessee had a bona fide belief that no service tax was payable, where bona fide doubt existed about chargeability, where the assessee voluntarily approached the department earlier, where the issue is one of legal interpretation creating genuine confusion, or where earlier favorable decisions were subsequently overruled without evidence of suppression.

Limitation for recovery of service tax prevents collection for time barred periods but notice remains partly effective.
A show cause notice that includes periods beyond the statutory limitation does not become wholly invalid; the Department cannot recover tax for time barred periods, and the assessee may raise the limitation defence during proceedings. The same rule applies to notices extending beyond a shorter statutory limitation-the excess period yields no departmental entitlement to recovery but does not vitiate valid allegations within the limitation.

Specific service allegation: tax liability cannot be confirmed unless the show-cause notice specifies the service head.
A show-cause notice must specifically identify the service head or sub-head relied upon; absent a precise allegation as to the applicable classification, tax liability cannot be confirmed, and alternative classifications suggested by the Commissioner without being pleaded in the notice render any demand unsustainable.