Second show cause notice on identical facts held impermissible after prior adjudication on excess stock allegations.

A second show cause notice based on the same inspection, stock verification and material already available before the first notice was issued was impermissible after the first proceedings had ended in an order-in-original. The authority had already considered the excess stock allegation and found no clandestine removal, so reopening the matter on identical facts amounted to vexing the assessee twice on the same allegations and, in substance, an impermissible review of the earlier decision. On that basis, the second notice was held not maintainable in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the same set of facts and without any fresh material, the department could issue a second show cause notice after the first proceedings had culminated in an order-in-original.

Analysis: The material relied upon for the second notice was already available before issuance of the first notice and arose from the same inspection and stock verification. The first proceedings had been adjudicated and the authority had already taken a view on the nature of the excess stock and the absence of clandestine removal. In such circumstances, initiating a second round of proceedings on the very same facts amounted to vexing the assessee twice on the same allegations and, in substance, to reviewing the earlier decision, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The second show cause notice was not maintainable and the answer is in favour of the assessee.

---