Extended limitation under Central Excise law cannot sustain a time-barred demand, while factual Tribunal findings remain undisturbed.

A demand issued on 21 May 1992 could not cover the earlier period from January 1986 to 20 May 1987 under the extended limitation period in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, because that portion fell outside five years from the notice date and was therefore time-barred. For the surviving period from 21 May 1987 to July 1987, the Tribunal's factual finding that there was insufficient evidence of use of soda ash in duty-unpaid detergent manufacture was treated as a finding of fact and was not interfered with. The demand accordingly failed for the barred period and could not be disturbed on merits for the remainder.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice could sustain the demand for the period from January 1986 to 20 May 1987 by invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the Tribunal's finding on merits for the period from 21 May 1987 to July 1987 called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice could sustain the demand for the period from January 1986 to 20 May 1987 by invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The notice was issued on 21 May 1992. Taking five years backward, the extended period could cover only the period from 21 May 1987 onwards. The earlier portion of the demand, namely from January 1986 to 20 May 1987, therefore fell outside the permissible extended period.

Conclusion: The demand for the period from January 1986 to 20 May 1987 was barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding on merits for the period from 21 May 1987 to July 1987 called for interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded a factual finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the soda ash in question had been used in the manufacture of detergent powder cleared without payment of duty. That finding was treated as one of fact.

Conclusion: The finding on merits for the surviving period did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The demand failed for the earlier period on limitation, and the remaining demand could not be disturbed on merits, leaving no basis for appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand issued beyond the extended limitation period cannot sustain liability for the time-barred portion, and a pure finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal will not be interfered with absent a legal infirmity.

---