Habitual evasion: prosecution permitted where repeated confirmed demands and substantial cumulative tax evasion or credit misuse.
Prosecution may be initiated against a company or assessee classified as a habitual evader where multiple confirmed demands (at first appellate level or above) for Central Excise duty or Service Tax, or findings of Cenvat credit misuse arising from fraud or suppression, occur within a prior period and the cumulative duty or tax evaded or credit misused meets a substantial monetary threshold; the Offence Register (335J) may be used to identify such assessees.

Prosecution threshold: prosecution requires evasion exceeding the prescribed monetary limit before proceeding for excise or service tax offences.
Prosecution for evasion of Central Excise duty or Service Tax, or misuse of Cenvat credit in relation to offences specified under sub section (1) of Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or sub section (1) of Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994 should normally not be launched unless the evasion meets or exceeds the prescribed monetary threshold set out in the departmental guideline.

Corporate criminal liability: officers and partners can be prosecuted for company service tax or excise evasion.
Persons in charge of and responsible for a company's business are prosecutable alongside the company for service tax or central excise evasion; where an offence by a company is shown to involve the consent, connivance or neglect of a director, manager, secretary or other officer, that individual is deemed guilty. The statutory definition of company includes firms and associations and treats a partner as a director, extending corporate liability principles to service tax prosecutions.

Prospective effect of administrative circulars: "henceforth" signals non-retrospective application, barring past-duty demands.
When the Board uses language such as "henceforth" a circular is to be treated as having prospective effect; consequently, if the Board did not intend retrospective application, the circular cannot support demands for duties predating its issuance.

Binding precedent: administrative circulars cannot override the Court's authoritative interpretation; courts must apply that law.
Administrative circulars cannot prevail over the law laid down by the highest court; courts and tribunals must apply the Court's authoritative interpretation. A protective rule preserved benefits already granted under exemption notifications from reopening, but did not permit adjudicative bodies to follow circulars in preference to the Court's decision where entitlement was contested and proceedings were pending.