Limitation under Section 11A governed pre-amendment Rule 57-I recovery, making the delayed show-cause notice invalid.

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to recoveries made under unamended Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 because the rule had to operate consistently with the parent Act's limitation scheme. The absence of an express limitation clause in the rule did not displace the statutory time limit, and notice initiating recovery formed part of the same process. The later insertion of a limitation clause was treated as clarificatory. A pre-amendment show-cause notice issued beyond limitation was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation prescribed in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied to recoveries made under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 even before the amendment introduced by Notification No. 28/88-C.E. (N.T.).

Analysis: Section 11A was held to be a general recovery provision governing duties not levied, short-levied, short-paid or erroneously refunded, and there was nothing in the unamended Rule 57-I to exclude its operation. The Rules, being subordinate legislation, had to be read with the Act, and where the Act prescribed limitation, the absence of an express limitation clause in the Rule could not displace it. The Court also treated issuance of notice as part of the recovery process and held that such notice had to conform to the statutory limitation. The subsequent insertion of a limitation clause in Rule 57-I was regarded as clarificatory and not as creating limitation for the first time.

Conclusion: The limitation under Section 11A applied to pre-amendment recoveries under Rule 57-I, and the impugned show-cause notice was beyond limitation and invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent Act prescribes a limitation for recovery of excise duty, an unamended delegated rule governing the same recovery must be read consistently with that limitation unless the rule clearly excludes it.

---