Quasi-judicial immunity does not protect conduct involving negligence, recklessness, lack of good faith or undue favour, although an erroneous order or technical violation alone does not warrant disciplinary action. Section 161 limits rectification to errors apparent on the record. Charges alleging that an officer exceeded this power and substantially reduced confirmed demands may require factual scrutiny where they disclose a prima facie case of misconduct. An assertion of good faith or the absence of a departmental appeal against the underlying orders does not by itself bar an enquiry.

Service line and development charges for dedicated electricity distribution infrastructure can be taxable as consideration for transferring the right to use goods under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, despite the licensee retaining ownership and control. Recovery of equipment costs alone does not establish a transfer; control, operation and maintenance are relevant. The infrastructure was developed for specified applicants, who could not independently operate the equipment, as an ancillary activity connected with electricity supply. Sections 42, 43 and 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003 govern distribution licensees' duties and recovery of infrastructure expenses.

Former Entry 54 of List II permits States to impose a surcharge calculated on valid sales tax as an enhancement of that tax. The subject of a tax differs from its measure: the surcharge varies with taxable turnover rather than a dealer's income, and a prohibition on passing it to purchasers does not change its character. A larger-bench reference addresses genuine uncertainty in binding law. The perceived conflict concerned different levies and legislative fields; a subsequent larger-bench decision displaced the premise that royalty was a tax, while the governing sales-tax precedent remained authoritative.

Removal of inputs as such after reversal of the CENVAT credit originally taken is not trading and does not attract payment under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Rule 3(5) provides for reversal of the credit on such removal, including removals to sister units or independent buyers. Although trading was declared an exempted service from 1 April 2011, the Rule 6(3) payment requirement for specified exempted activities does not apply to these removals.

Service tax on a factory-land lease qualifies for input service credit where it has a manufacturing nexus; deletion of 'setting up' from the inclusive definition does not exclude it. Neither the absence of production when credit was taken nor later factory registration defeated the established nexus. Admissible credit is not recoverable solely because it was recorded under another registration of the same legal person; distribution or factory entry is the proper course, and absence of distributor registration is a curable irregularity. Credit cannot be retaken or refunded at the original registration; fresh availment at the factory remains unadjudicated. Adjudication beyond six months does not automatically invalidate an order; the period applies where possible, and adjudication must occur within a reasonable time. Interest requires credit to be both wrongly taken and utilised; penalty requires applicable statutory conditions and cannot rest on an unnotified ground.

Duty-free inputs used to manufacture finished goods are subject to duty and interest when the required export does not occur, including where the goods fail quality testing and are destroyed without intimation to the authorities. Exemption conditions are construed strictly, and the obligation to pay duty and interest under the bond continues when those conditions are not fulfilled. The normal limitation period does not apply to enforcement of that obligation. The exemption notifications require duty and interest but do not mandate a penalty; the absence of an intention to evade duty is also relevant to penalty.

Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 excludes Tribunal orders involving questions relating to the rate of duty or value for assessment from the High Court's appellate jurisdiction. Section 35L treats taxability as a question relating to the rate of duty and provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court. An appeal against a Tribunal determination on the taxability of computer reservation services under reverse charge therefore follows the Section 35L route rather than the High Court route.

The limitation period for an appeal under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 runs from the established date of receipt where prior effective service is not proved. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governs service in service tax proceedings through section 83 of the Finance Act. The order was affixed to the office notice board without proof of prior effective service. The appeal filed after a copy was provided was within limitation, and its merits remain to be adjudicated.

The limitation period for an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 runs from receipt of the order. Proper service is required under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which applies to service tax through Section 83 of the Finance Act. Where delivery is disputed, dispatch by registered post and non-return of the article alone do not establish effective service for computing limitation.

Book printing constitutes manufacture or production under excise law, with printed books attracting a nil tariff rate. Processes amounting to manufacture or production are included in the negative list of services and are therefore excluded from service tax. The tax department bears the burden of establishing taxability; a difference between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns alone cannot support a demand without identification of a taxable service and its statutory elements. The extended limitation period cannot be invoked where no positive act of evasion is identified.

Recipients bear the full service-tax liability for goods transport agency services under reverse charge where the consignor or consignee falls within specified categories. Transport of fertiliser, organic manure and oil cakes qualifies for exemption, subject to proof of entitlement through relevant transport records. Income-tax returns and Form 26AS alone cannot establish taxable services without independent verification or corroborative evidence. Differences between income-tax data available to the department and service-tax returns do not, by themselves, establish suppression or justify the extended limitation period.

Service tax demands cannot rest solely on third-party income-tax data without investigation or verification of receipts. The extended limitation period requires the statutory ingredients of suppression or misstatement. Figures drawn from income-tax returns and accounts treated as public documents, without evidence of mala fide non-payment, do not support invocation of that period. In these circumstances, the demand is unsustainable and time-barred, and the associated tax, interest and penalties do not survive.

Common input-service CENVAT credit is admissible at one unit despite the absence of input service distributor registration where units share ownership, eligibility is supported by records, and there is no excess or double credit. A subsequently introduced proportionate-distribution restriction cannot be applied retrospectively. Partial credit reversal without prejudice is not an admission of liability. Extended limitation requires evidence of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement; erroneous credit availment alone is insufficient. Audit does not automatically establish departmental knowledge of every entry. Where the entire demand falls outside the normal limitation period and the extended period is unavailable, recovery is time-barred and consequential interest and penalty are unsustainable.

Target-based and non-target-based incentives and claims received by a vehicle dealer are not liable to service tax where they arise from principal-to-principal trading in goods rather than consideration for a separate service. Under the Finance Act, 1994, a service involves an activity performed for another for consideration and includes declared services, but excludes a mere transfer of title in goods. Trade and quantity discounts relate to trading transactions even when credited after purchase or reimbursed after sales to customers. Their calculation or credit after a transaction does not by itself make them consideration for a taxable service.

SEZ service tax refunds are not restricted to tax paid within the claim quarter, although Notification No. 12/2013-ST permits only one claim per quarter. Amounts distributed by an input service distributor become claimable by the SEZ unit on distribution, and limitation cannot begin before they become claimable. Reverse-charge payments are treated on the same footing. Notification conditions cannot curtail SEZ exemptions by imposing requirements beyond those prescribed by SEZ law. Refunds for approved services used for authorised operations cannot be denied for lack of approval or Form A-1, which Rule 22 does not prescribe as an exemption condition.

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.