Extended limitation for excise recovery requires specific allegations in the notice, or the notice fails as time-barred.

A show cause notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued beyond six months from the refund order was invalid where it did not expressly allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The department could not rely on the extended limitation proviso without putting the assessee on notice of the specific statutory ground invoked. In the absence of such an allegation, the notice could not sustain recovery proceedings and was held time-barred and without authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, more than six months after the refund order was time-barred when it did not expressly allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The notice referred only to an erroneously granted rebate and did not inform the assessee that the extended period under the proviso to Rule 10 was being invoked on any specific allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Where the department seeks to rely on the exceptional extended limitation, the assessee must be put on notice of the precise accusation so that it may meet the case against it. In the absence of such an allegation in the notice, issuance beyond six months could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The notice was time-barred and without authority, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: When the revenue invokes an extended limitation proviso for recovery of excise duty, the show cause notice must specifically allege the statutory ground enabling extension; otherwise, a notice issued beyond the normal limitation period is invalid.

---