JUDGMENT N. KUMAR - This is an appeal by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which held that the demand of service tax made prior to the issue of show-cause notice is beyond the period of one year and is clearly barred by time. The assessee, M/s. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, is a State Government undertaking. They were found to have rendered taxable services under the category of "storage and warehousing services" and "cargo handling services" during the period August 16, 2002 to March 31, 2005, without following the statutory formalities including payment of service tax due. On the omissions being pointed out to them, the assessee got registered as providers of storage and warehousing services in the year 2004. Thereafter, they accepted the liability and paid Rs. 2,51,806 as service tax under the category "cargo handling services". The assessee opposed the attempt to penalize them on the ground that they have failed to pay service tax. The assessing authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 53,79,256 under storage and warehousing services and Rs. 25,17,466 under the cargo handling services Rs. 39,03,044 and Rs. 5,00,000 already paid by the assessee towards their liability were appropriated. Thereafter, the assessing authority directed the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. After hearing the parties, the appellate authority held that the assessee was engaged in storage and warehousing facility for a consideration and that they raised commercial invoices for the services rendered and this showed that they were not levying any fee as statutorily prescribed and came to the conclusion that the services rendered by the assessee is of service which falls under the Act and, therefore, they are liable to pay service tax. It is on the question of limitation that it found that the show-cause notice issued on March 21, 2006 demanding service tax for the period August 16, 2002 to March 31, 2005 it is clearly barred by time. Therefore, the same was set aside. As the assessee had claimed that they had availed of input service and paid service tax qualified as Cenvat credit, the Tribunal wanted the assessing officer to assess the said claim. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for that purpose. Therefore, the same was set aside. As the assessee had claimed that they had availed of input service and paid service tax qualified as Cenvat credit, the Tribunal wanted the assessing officer to assess the said claim. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for that purpose. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that, when the assessee did not get themselves registered, they cannot plead ignorance of law and as with the intention of evading payment of tax, they did not get themselves registered, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed for enforcing such claims is five years and not one year as held by the Tribunal. At the time of admitting the appeal, this court had framed the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether, it was correct in setting aside the demand of tax beyond the normal period when the suppression with an intention to evade tax on the part of the respondents has not been disputed by the honourable CESTAT ? (2) Whether the CESTAT was right in setting aside the demand of tax beyond the normal period on the ground that the demand was not made within time when there is no statutory time-limit prescribed for issue of show-cause notice from the date of detection and the said time taken to issue the show-cause notice is reasonable and justified ? (3) Whether, the CESTAT was right in setting aside the demand of tax beyond the normal period contrary to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Mathania Fabrics v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2008] 221 ELT 481 (SC) ?" The answer to these questions revolve round the interpretation to be placed to section 73(1) of the Act which reads as under : "73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the Central Excise Officer may within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with service tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the person to whom such tax refund has been erroneously made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice : Provided that where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied, or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of - (a) Fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax by the person chargeable with the service tax or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words 'one year' the words 'five years' had been substituted." Sub-section (1) of section 73 provides a limitation of one year from the relevant date as the period for recovery of service tax which has not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. The proviso to the said provision extends the period of limitation to five years in the event of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions or rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the assessee did not get themselves registered. It is their contention that the services rendered by them is not amenable to the Act. However, when it was brought to their notice that they are covered under the Act, they have registered themselves and have paid the tax. The materials on record do not disclose a case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of tax. The materials on record do not disclose a case of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of tax. It discloses that the assessee having bona fide believed that the services provided by them do not attract service tax, they did not get themselves registered. The Department also did not levy tax. The moment it was brought to their notice that the services rendered by them come under the Act, they promptly registered themselves and paid tax. Therefore, it is clear the case falls under sub-section (1) of section 73 and not under the proviso of the said section. Therefore, the period prescribed is one year prior to the date of the show-cause notice. Beyond that period, it is clearly barred by time. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.