Excise recovery limitation: Section 11-A governs show cause notices only, and Article 137 does not bar recovery proceedings.

Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits only the issuance of the show cause notice for non-levied, short-levied, or erroneously refunded duty; it does not prescribe a limitation period for the later demand notice or recovery steps after adjudication. Because the show cause notices were issued within the statutory period, the demand and recovery challenge failed. The Limitation Act, 1963, including Article 137, was held inapplicable to defeat recovery proceedings under the Central Excise Act in this context, so the three-year limitation argument also failed. The writ petition was rejected and the recovery notice sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notice of demand and recovery proceedings were barred because they were issued after one year from the assessment of excise duty under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and (ii) whether recovery of the duty was barred by the three-year period under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): whether the notice of demand and recovery proceedings were barred because they were issued after one year from the assessment of excise duty under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11-A(1) prescribes a limitation of one year for issuance of the show cause notice where duty has not been levied, paid, short levied, short paid, or erroneously refunded. The provision does not fix a period of limitation for issuance of the demand notice after adjudication. Section 11-A(2) authorises determination of the duty payable after consideration of the noticee's representation. Since the show cause notices were issued within the statutory period, the challenge based on delay in issuing the demand notice failed.

Conclusion: The demand and recovery proceedings were not barred under Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (ii): whether recovery of the duty was barred by the three-year period under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Article 137 applies to suits and other proceedings of the kind contemplated by the Limitation Act. The Court held that the Limitation Act did not govern recovery proceedings under the Central Excise Act in the present context, and therefore the three-year period could not be invoked to defeat recovery.

Conclusion: Recovery of the duty was not barred by Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because neither the excise-demand challenge nor the limitation-based challenge succeeded, and the recovery notice was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits only the issuance of the show cause notice, not the later demand notice or recovery steps, and the Limitation Act does not bar such excise recovery proceedings in the circumstances considered.

---