Extended limitation and retrospective notification on associated enterprises cannot sustain a time-barred demand when facts were already known.

The extended period could not be invoked where the notification on associated enterprises was issued after the relevant show cause period and was not expressly retrospective, so it could not support the earlier demand. The Tribunal also found that commission-payment facts were already within the department's knowledge, making the notice time-barred. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in those findings and declined interference, holding that no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period on the basis of the notification relating to associated enterprises issued after the relevant period, and whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had held that the notification concerning associated enterprises was issued after the entire period covered by the show cause notice and was not made expressly retrospective. On that basis, the allegation of transactions between associated enterprises could not be invoked for the earlier period. It further held that the facts regarding commission payments were already within the department's knowledge, so the extended period was unavailable and the notice was time-barred. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in those findings and no ground to interfere.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on the basis of the extended period, and the appeal failed for want of any substantial question of law.

---