2014 (4) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, we find no merit in the contention of the applicant that the show cause notice is served not within one year. Further, we find that though the demand in the show cause notice is by invoking extended period of limitation, however while passing the final order, the Bench set aside the demand beyond the normal period. In these circumstances, we find no error apparent on record in the final .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod provided under the Act. In the present case, as the show cause notice is not served within one year as provided under Section 73 of the Finance Act, therefore the demand even for normal period is not sustainable. 3. The Revenue opposed the application and submitted that the show cause notice was issued for the period April 2000 to March 2005 by invoking proviso to Section 73 of the Finance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, which provides that demand for five years can be made in the case of suppression or misstatement of facts. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the applicant that the show cause notice is served not within one year. Further, we find that though the demand in the show cause notice is by invoking extended period of limitation, however while passing the final order, the Bench set asi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X