Extended limitation under excise law requires clear notice of the exact alleged omission; vague allegations cannot sustain demand.

The extended limitation period under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where the show cause notice failed to specify the particular commission or omission alleged to attract the proviso to section 11A(1). Although the notice referred to non-obtaining of a central excise licence and failure to maintain accounts and discharge duty, it did not clearly identify the precise ground on which extended limitation was sought, and the adjudication order also did not record any finding on limitation. The governing principle is that an assessee must receive clear notice of the exact allegation so the defence can be met effectively; on that basis, the demand was not sustainable on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation when the show cause notice did not specify the particular commission or omission required to invoke the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The notice alleged failure to obtain a central excise licence and failure to maintain accounts and discharge duty liability, but it did not identify the specific ground falling within the proviso to Section 11A(1) on which the extended period was sought to be applied. The impugned order also did not record any finding on the plea of limitation. The applicable principle is that, before the extended period can be invoked, the assessee must be put to clear notice of the exact commission or omission relied upon so that the defence can be met effectively.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked on the basis of such a notice, and the demand was not sustainable on limitation.

---