Prospective limitation amendment under central excise law cannot revive a time-barred demand beyond the period then in force.

A later amendment extending the limitation period for central excise demand was held to operate prospectively, not retrospectively. Because the show cause notice related to a period when the normal limitation under Section 11A was six months, the demand could not be sustained beyond the limitation in force at the relevant time. Where the extended limitation proviso was already found inapplicable, the demand could not be confirmed for a longer period merely because the law was later amended. The demand beyond the six-month period was therefore unsustainable, with consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand could be sustained for a period beyond the then applicable normal limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in view of a later amendment enhancing the period of limitation.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued for a prior period when the normal limitation under Section 11A was six months. The later amendment enhancing the period to one year with effect from 12-5-2000 was held to be prospective and not retrospective. Since the Commissioner had already held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was not attracted, the demand could not be confirmed for a longer period than the limitation applicable at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The demand beyond the six-month limitation was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the assessee.

---