Extended limitation in service tax demands requires specific pleadings of suppression or fraud; bare allegations are insufficient.

Extended limitation for service tax demand could be invoked only if the show cause notice specifically pleaded the statutory ingredients, including suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax. Because the notice did not invoke the amended proviso to Section 73 or set out the required particulars, a bare allegation of suppression was insufficient to sustain the larger period. The amended limitation regime was treated as pari materia with the corresponding excise provision, requiring proper notice of the grounds relied on. On that basis, the demand was held barred by limitation and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax was barred by limitation because the show cause notice did not invoke the amended proviso to Section 73 and did not specifically plead the ingredients necessary for the extended period.

Analysis: The demand related to the period prior to the amendment of 10.09.2004, while the show cause notice was issued after the amendment. The amended provision was treated as pari materia with the corresponding excise limitation provision, under which extended limitation can be invoked only when the notice specifically alleges the requisite grounds such as suppression, fraud, or misstatement with intent to evade tax. A mere allegation of suppression, unsupported by proper particulars or evidence, was held insufficient. The notice did not adequately put the assessee on notice of the precise ingredients required for invoking the larger period, and the cited precedent supported the view that the amended limitation regime had to be complied with.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---