Limitation for service tax demand fails where facts were disclosed and no suppression supported use of the extended period.

Service tax demand was held to be time-barred because the extended limitation period was unavailable in the absence of suppression of material facts. The appellant had opted for the composite works contract scheme, withdrew that option before paying service tax, and informed the department of these steps. As the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period and the relevant facts had been disclosed, the demand could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the service tax demand was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The appellant had opted for the composite works contract scheme and withdrew that option before payment of service tax, and the department was informed of these steps. The show cause notice was issued after the normal period of limitation. On these facts, there was no suppression of material facts and the extended period was not available.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained.

---