Shifting service classification for the same activity defeats suppression and bars invocation of the extended limitation period.

The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the Revenue had first issued a notice on the same activity under cargo handling service, dropped those proceedings, and later sought to classify the identical activity under business auxiliary service. The Revenue's shifting classification for the same conduct negatived any allegation of suppression and removed the foundation for invoking the extended limitation period, so the demand was time-barred and the proceedings were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and the demand sustained where, for the same activity, the Revenue had first proceeded on one service classification and later on another.

Analysis: The same activity had earlier been the subject of a show cause notice proposing classification under cargo handling service, and those proceedings were dropped. The impugned notice later sought to classify the very same activity under business auxiliary service. In these circumstances, the Revenue's own uncertainty on the correct classification negatived any allegation of suppression against the assessee and removed the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand was therefore barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue itself changes the service classification for the same activity after earlier proceedings on that activity were dropped, suppression cannot be alleged and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---