Extended limitation under central excise cannot be added later where an earlier notice on the same facts lacked suppression allegations.

A second show cause notice under the Central Excise Act could not invoke the extended period of limitation where an earlier notice on the same facts had already been issued without alleging suppression, fraud, misstatement or intent to evade duty, and no fresh material or further investigation emerged. In that situation, the later notice could not retrospectively add allegations to overcome limitation. The notice was therefore time-barred and unsustainable, and the consequential duty demand and penalties did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation for recovery of central excise duty was time-barred in view of the earlier notice on the same facts and absence of new material.

Analysis: The department had already issued a show cause notice on the same facts without alleging suppression, fraud, or misstatement of facts with intent to evade duty, and without invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No further investigation or fresh facts emerged thereafter. In such circumstances, the later notice could not validly introduce allegations of suppression or apply the extended period merely to overcome limitation. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on its facts because there was no prior notice in that case.

Conclusion: The second show cause notice was time-barred and unsustainable; the Revenue appeals therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal rested on limitation, leaving the demand and consequential penalties without survival in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department has already issued a notice on the same facts without alleging suppression or invoking the extended period, a subsequent notice cannot retrospectively create such allegations in the absence of fresh facts or further investigation.

---