Extended limitation in service tax needs specific suppression allegations; mere non-registration was held insufficient for pre-deposit waiver.

Invocation of the extended limitation period under the service tax regime requires a specific allegation in the show cause notice that the assessee suppressed facts with intent to evade tax. Mere non-registration, without such a pleaded allegation, is insufficient to establish suppression or sustain the extended period. On that basis, the appellant showed a strong prima facie case on limitation and time bar, and full waiver of pre-deposit was granted together with stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on the ground that the show cause notice did not allege suppression of facts or invoke the extended period under the proviso to Section 73.

Analysis: The demand for pre-deposit was tested against the allegations in the show cause notice and the finding in the impugned order that non-registration itself amounted to suppression. It was held that invocation of the extended period must be clearly pleaded in the notice, and that mere non-registration, without a specific allegation of suppression with intent to evade, is insufficient to sustain the extended period. The appellant therefore made out a strong prima facie case on limitation and time bar.

Conclusion: Full waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery was stayed until disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts with intent to evade is specifically alleged in the show cause notice; mere non-registration does not by itself establish suppression.

---