Limitation on excise review notices bars use of extended demand period to revive an out-of-time departmental review.

The Collector's power to review an Assistant Collector's order was held to be subject to the limitation period under Section 11A, computed from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. The extended period in the proviso to Section 11A applies to original demands involving suppression or wilful misstatement, but it does not enlarge the time for issuing a review notice on facts already before the Department. As the notice was issued beyond six months from the original order, it was time-barred and the Collector's order founded on that notice could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector's review notice issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation, and whether the longer period under the proviso to Section 11A could be invoked to sustain the review.

Analysis: Section 35A(3)(b) makes the Collector's power to issue a review notice subject to the time-limit prescribed by Section 11A. The period is to be computed from the date of the Assistant Collector's order sought to be reviewed. The larger period contemplated by the proviso to Section 11A is relevant to original demands where non-disclosure, suppression, or wilful mis-statement prevents timely assessment, but it does not extend the Collector's power to review an adjudication order on the same facts already before the Department. On the facts, the review notice was issued beyond six months from the Assistant Collector's order, and the Collector's reliance on the proviso to Section 11A was not accepted.

Conclusion: The review notice was time-barred, and the Collector's order based on that notice could not stand.

---