2018 (4) TMI 376 - HC - Service Tax

Extended period of Limitation - Held that - whether the demand is wholly sustainable or it is time barred, given the language of Section 11A(1)of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the matter is sent back to the Tribunal - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of substantial questions of law
- Determination of limitation period for raising demands

Interpretation of Substantial Questions of Law:
The High Court analyzed the substantial questions of law summarized by the Revenue in the order under appeal. It was noted that while the impugned order favored the Revenue on the merits of the demand, it failed to address the crucial issue of limitation. The Court emphasized that the sustainability of the demand hinged on the extended period of limitation, which remained unanswered. Reference was made to a previous judgment to assert the importance of addressing this issue separately from the merits. The Court directed the Tribunal to determine whether the demand could be raised after the initial limitation period had lapsed.

Determination of Limitation Period for Raising Demands:
The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides regarding the limitation period for raising demands. While one party contended that the demands were within limitation and not subject to any time bar, the other party emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to decide on this issue independently. Given the provisions of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal solely for the purpose of determining whether the demand was sustainable or time-barred. All other contentions were deemed concluded by a previous judgment of the Division Bench, leading to the allowance of the appeal based on the specific issue of time bar/limitation.