Classification of printed wrappers and limitation on a second show cause notice were decided against the Department on the same facts.

Printed wrappers and printed sheets were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901 rather than Chapter Heading 4811, following the earlier classification finding in the assessee's own case. A subsequent show cause notice on the same issue and substantially the same facts could not validly invoke the extended period of limitation, because the Department was already aware of the manufacturing activity and the dispute had been raised earlier. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the order setting aside demand, interest and penalties was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the printed wrappers and printed sheets were classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901 or Chapter Heading 4811; (ii) whether the second show cause notice could validly invoke the extended period of limitation on the same issue and similar facts.

Issue (i): whether the printed wrappers and printed sheets were classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901 or Chapter Heading 4811.

Analysis: The classification dispute had already been examined in the assessee's own earlier proceedings, where the goods were held to fall under Chapter Heading 4901 attracting nil rate of duty. The impugned order followed that view, and no material infirmity was shown in that classification finding.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901 and not under Chapter Heading 4811.

Issue (ii): whether the second show cause notice could validly invoke the extended period of limitation on the same issue and similar facts.

Analysis: The later notice covered the same allegations and substantially the same factual matrix as the earlier notice. Once the Department was already aware of the manufacturing activity and the issue had been raised earlier, the subsequent notice could not sustain invocation of the extended period on the basis of suppression. The principle that the extended period is not available for a subsequent notice on the same facts applied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The Department's challenge failed on both classification and limitation, and the order setting aside the demand, interest, and penalties was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent show cause notice on the same issue and similar facts cannot invoke the extended period of limitation when the Department was already aware of the relevant facts and the classification dispute had been earlier decided in the assessee's favour.

---