Extended limitation cannot be invoked on same facts after an earlier notice; later service tax demand was held time-barred.

A later service tax demand based on the same material and substantially identical allegations as an earlier show cause notice could not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation. Because the relevant facts were already within the department's knowledge, the allegation of suppression for the later period was unsustainable. The tribunal applied the settled principle that a subsequent demand on the same set of facts does not permit reopening through the extended limitation period merely for a different tax period. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the consequential demand, interest and penalties could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax for the later period could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation on the same or similar facts on which an earlier show cause notice had already been issued.

Analysis: The later notice was founded on the same material and substantially identical allegations as the earlier notice already issued for an overlapping period. Once the relevant facts were already within the department's knowledge, the subsequent allegation of suppression for invoking the extended period could not be sustained. The settled principle applied was that a later demand on the same set of facts does not permit invocation of the extended period merely because the department chooses to reopen the matter for a different period. Applying that principle, the demand raised by the later show cause notice was held time-barred, and the consequential demand, interest and penalties could not survive.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation failed, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---