https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274700 Limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act was central to the service tax demand, because the normal one-year period applies unless the extended five-year period is justified by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade. The Tribunal had not examined the date of the demand notice or recorded reasons on whether the demand fell within the normal or extended period, even though limitation affected the maintainability of the demand and the consequential pre-deposit direction. The pre-deposit order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of limitation on the relevant facts before passing an appropriate stay order. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:05:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274700 Limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act was central to the service tax demand, because the normal one-year period applies unless the extended five-year period is justified by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade. The Tribunal had not examined the date of the demand notice or recorded reasons on whether the demand fell within the normal or extended period, even though limitation affected the maintainability of the demand and the consequential pre-deposit direction. The pre-deposit order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of limitation on the relevant facts before passing an appropriate stay order. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274700