Extended limitation under central excise law fails when the Department already knew the material facts from earlier notices.

Where earlier show cause notices on the same subject-matter had already been issued and the relevant facts were within the Department's knowledge, the same facts could not later be treated as suppression to invoke the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that references in the later notices to intelligence and recorded statements did not change the position, because those material facts were already before the authorities. The extended period was therefore not available, and the impugned show cause notices were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the basis of suppression of facts, when earlier show cause notices on the same subject-matter had already been issued and the relevant facts were within the knowledge of the Department.

Analysis: The earlier and impugned show cause notices proceeded on substantially the same facts and allegations concerning clearance of the by-product and the alleged non-filing of declarations. The Court applied the principle that where the Department was already aware of the material facts from earlier proceedings, the same or similar facts cannot later be treated as suppression for invoking the extended limitation period. The reference in the impugned notices to intelligence and recorded statements did not alter the position, because those facts were already before the authorities when the earlier notices were issued. On that basis, the Court held that the Department could not rely on suppression to reopen the earlier period beyond the normal limitation.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified and the impugned show cause notices were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Facts already within the knowledge of the Department, especially where earlier proceedings on the same subject-matter had been initiated, cannot subsequently be treated as suppression to sustain the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---