Wrong citation in excise notice is not fatal, but limitation under Section 11A required fresh reconsideration.

A wrong citation of Rule 10 in a show cause notice does not, by itself, invalidate excise proceedings where the substantive power to levy duty exists. The more material issue is limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944: where the demand covers an earlier period and the notice is issued later, the demand may be time-barred unless the proviso to Section 11A(1) applies. Because limitation was not properly examined, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after the assessee was allowed to file an explanation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of excise duty was vitiated by reference to a wrong rule in the show cause notice and whether the demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had replaced Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from 17-11-1980, so the reference to Rule 10 in the show cause notice was a mistake in citation and did not by itself invalidate the proceedings. The more substantial question was limitation. Since the demand covered the period from 1-4-1979 to 26-6-1980 and the notice was issued on 26-11-1980, the demand for the earlier portion of the period appeared to be time-barred unless the proviso to Section 11A(1) applied. As that question had not been examined earlier, the proper course was to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to file an explanation.

Conclusion: The incorrect reference to Rule 10 did not vitiate the proceedings, but the limitation issue required reconsideration by the authority below and the matter was remitted for a fresh order.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere wrong citation of the statutory provision in a show cause notice does not invalidate excise proceedings if the substantive power exists, but where limitation under Section 11A is not examined, the demand must be reconsidered afresh.

---