Extended limitation for service tax demand failed where suppression was unsupported and pre-amendment Section 73 was applied.

Invocation of the extended period for service tax demand was found unsustainable where the allegation of willful suppression was not backed by material evidence and appeared inferential. The order also relied on the amended form of Section 73 even though the show cause notice had been issued before the amendment took effect, creating a further legal defect. On these grounds, interim stay of the impugned order was granted without any pre-deposit condition, and the application was disposed of.

---

---

Issues: Whether the invocation of the extended period for service tax demand was sustainable on the material available, and whether interim stay of the impugned order should be granted without pre-deposit.

Analysis: The proceedings had been initiated by invoking the extended period of limitation. The stated finding of willful suppression was not supported by material evidence and appeared to be inferential. The order also proceeded on the amended form of Section 73, although the show cause notice had been issued before the amendment took effect.

Outcome: Interim stay of the impugned order was granted without any condition of pre-deposit, and the application was disposed of.

---