Limitation under central excise rules barred recovery notice issued after delay following intimation of goods lost in dacoity.

Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a written demand within the limitation period under Section 11A. Where goods were reported lost in dacoity and remission was claimed, the department issued the show cause notice for recovery after more than six months from intimation. On those facts, the notice was beyond the prescribed period and the recovery demand was barred by limitation, making the notice unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was barred by limitation because the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period after intimation of the loss of goods in dacoity.

Analysis: Rule 9(2) required written demand within the period specified in Section 11A of the Act. The goods were reported lost in dacoity and remission was claimed, but the show cause notice for recovery was issued after more than six months from the date of intimation. On these facts, the notice was beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the show cause notice was not sustainable.

---