Limitation under service tax requires specific findings; demand and penalties were remitted for fresh consideration

Service tax demand and penalties were required to be reconsidered because the adjudication and appellate orders did not contain a specific finding on limitation, despite an earlier direction to examine the statutory time limit and the extended period. The record indicated that the adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte and referred to suppression and attempted evasion, but did not deal with limitation in the manner required. The matter was therefore remitted to the original authority for a fresh decision on limitation, and the appeal was allowed for that limited purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalties deserved remand for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation in view of the absence of specific findings despite the earlier direction to examine limitation.

Analysis: The appellate order and the original adjudication did not record a specific finding on limitation, although the matter had earlier been directed to be examined with reference to the statutory time limit and the applicability of the extended period under the service tax law. The record showed that the adjudicating authority proceeded ex parte and relied on the allegation of suppression and attempted evasion, but the issue of limitation was not dealt with in the manner required. In these circumstances, the appellate authority found that the matter required reconsideration by the original authority in the light of the earlier judicial direction.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the original authority for a fresh decision on limitation, and the appeal was allowed for that purpose.

---