Limitation for excise duty recovery turns on the relevant date for periodical returns; one demand was time-barred.

Limitation under Section 11A governed recovery of short-paid central excise duty where no suppression, fraud or collusion was alleged, so the department had to issue notice within six months from the relevant date. For periodical returns, the relevant date was the filing date or the last due date for filing. Applying that rule, two notices were within time, but the notice dated 13-1-2000 was time-barred for the quarter from 1-4-1999 to 30-6-1999. That demand was set aside, while the remaining demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notices demanding differential duty on reclassification of FRP sheets were barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The product classification under Chapter 39 was not contested, the dispute being confined to limitation. For recovery of duty short-paid without allegations of suppression, fraud or collusion, the notice had to be issued within six months from the relevant date. In the case of periodical returns, the relevant date was the date on which the return was filed or the last date on which it ought to have been filed. Applying that rule, the notices dated 30-6-1999 and 19-4-2000 were within time, but the notice dated 13-1-2000, insofar as it covered the quarter from 1-4-1999 to 30-6-1999, was beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The demand for the quarter from 1-4-1999 to 30-6-1999 was barred by limitation and set aside, while the remaining demand was sustained.

---