https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251649 The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging Final Order Nos. 228 & 229/2011 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the show cause notice for Service Tax recovery issued in 2005 was not time-barred, emphasizing that the interim stay on tax recovery did not affect the notice period calculation. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Gokak Patel Volkart Limited v. CCE [1987 (28) E.L.T. 53 (S.C.)], the Court ruled that unless an interim order specifically addresses notice issuance or duty levy, the stay period does not impact notice timelines. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as no substantial legal question arose for consideration. en-us Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:22:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251649 The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging Final Order Nos. 228 & 229/2011 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the show cause notice for Service Tax recovery issued in 2005 was not time-barred, emphasizing that the interim stay on tax recovery did not affect the notice period calculation. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Gokak Patel Volkart Limited v. CCE [1987 (28) E.L.T. 53 (S.C.)], the Court ruled that unless an interim order specifically addresses notice issuance or duty levy, the stay period does not impact notice timelines. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as no substantial legal question arose for consideration. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251649