Extended limitation under Central Excise law cannot rest on suppression once earlier notices already disclosed the same facts.

The extended period of limitation under Central Excise law is unavailable where the Revenue had already issued earlier show cause notices on the same subject matter, because prior notices place the relevant facts within departmental knowledge and negate suppression or wilful misstatement for a later notice on the same controversy. The factual point that the impugned notices related to earlier periods was held immaterial, since the decisive issue was the department's prior awareness and the absence of any new facts justifying extended limitation. On that basis, the demand under the impugned notices was time-barred and the notices, together with the Tribunal's order, were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise law could be invoked for the fourth and fifth show cause notices on the allegation of suppression of facts and wilful misstatement, when earlier show cause notices on the same subject matter had already been issued and adjudicated.

Analysis: The relevant framework under the proviso to section 11A(1) permits the extended period only where the Revenue establishes fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The Court applied the settled principle that once the department had already issued earlier show cause notices on the same or similar factual foundation, the material facts were in its knowledge, and a later notice for an earlier period cannot be sustained on the same basis as suppression. The factual distinction relied upon by the Tribunal, namely that the impugned notices covered prior periods, was held to be immaterial because the decisive consideration was the department's prior awareness of the dispute and the absence of any new or different facts justifying the extended period.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was not permissible, the demand under the impugned notices was time-barred, and the finding was in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned show cause notices and the Tribunal's order were quashed, with consequential relief to follow.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department is already aware of the relevant facts from earlier proceedings on the same subject matter, a subsequent show cause notice cannot invoke the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts for that same controversy.

---