Limitation under Central Excise Rules barred a show cause notice where no fraud or suppression was alleged.

A show cause notice for past-period central excise demands was held time-barred because it was issued beyond the ordinary six-month limitation under Rule 10 and contained no allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The longer five-year period could apply only on those specified grounds. A later departmental view that duty had been leviable earlier amounted only to a change in legal opinion and did not justify reopening the matter beyond the normal limitation period. The notice was therefore unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned show cause notice could be sustained when it was issued beyond the ordinary limitation period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules in the absence of any allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The notice related to demands for past periods. Rule 10 permitted recovery within six months from the relevant date, and the longer five-year period applied only where the notice was founded on fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The notice did not allege any such conduct by the petitioner. The demand was based only on a subsequent departmental view that duty had been leviable earlier, which amounted to a change in legal opinion and did not justify reopening beyond the normal period of limitation.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation and could not be sustained. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

---