Extended limitation in central excise fails where disclosures were already in ER-1 returns and consignments were not properly identified.

The extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act was not available where the facts relied on in the show cause notice were already disclosed in the ER-1 returns and the notice did not clearly segregate the consignments forming the basis of the demand. On those facts, the ingredients required to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) were not established, so the notice was held time-barred and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand related to the period January 2002 to March 2003, while the show cause notice was issued on 29.01.2007 by invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The material forming the basis of the notice was already reflected in the ER-1 returns filed by the appellant, and the notice itself did not satisfactorily segregate the consignments so as to support the allegation made. On these facts, the ingredients necessary to justify the extended period were not established.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was time-barred and not sustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

---