https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245536 A limitation challenge to a service tax demand was raised on the ground that the show cause notice was served beyond one year, but the notice was stated to have been issued under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 on allegations of suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement, which allows a five-year period. The demand had already been confined to the normal period in the final order, and no patent error or mistake apparent on the record was shown. The rectification request was therefore rejected and the application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:52:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245536 A limitation challenge to a service tax demand was raised on the ground that the show cause notice was served beyond one year, but the notice was stated to have been issued under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 on allegations of suppression, fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement, which allows a five-year period. The demand had already been confined to the normal period in the final order, and no patent error or mistake apparent on the record was shown. The rectification request was therefore rejected and the application was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245536