Extended limitation period in service tax disputes rejected where suppression or wilful evasion was not established.

Service tax demand for the period 01.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 was found time-barred because the show cause notice was issued later by invoking the extended limitation period without establishing the requisite elements for that exception. The record did not show intentional suppression or wilful evasion by the distributor/commission agent, and the Tribunal followed its consistent view in similar Amway distributor matters that the extended period was not applicable. The demand was therefore set aside on limitation alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax for the period 01.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 was barred by limitation and the extended period of limitation could be invoked against a distributor/commission agent.

Analysis: The demand was raised for a past period, while the show cause notice was issued much later by invoking the extended period. The record did not establish the ingredients necessary to sustain invocation of the extended period, including any intentional suppression or wilful evasion. The Tribunal also followed its consistent view in similar matters involving Amway distributors/commission agents that the extended period was not applicable.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation and was set aside on that ground alone.

---