Second show cause notice for the same duty period held unsustainable when the earlier notice remained pending and limitation had expired.

A second show cause notice demanding duty for the same period was held unsustainable where an earlier notice under Rule 96ZP(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained undecided. The later notice covered an identical period and was issued about four years after the first notice, while the stated limitation for adjudication of the differential duty demand was six months. On these facts, the second notice was treated as without jurisdiction and barred by limitation, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second show cause notice demanding duty for the same period, issued after the first notice had remained undecided for about four years, was valid and within limitation.

Analysis: A show cause notice under Rule 96ZP(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had already been issued for the disputed period. The same demand was sought to be raised again by a later notice covering the identical period. The first notice had not been adjudicated, and the later notice was issued after about four years, whereas the limitation for adjudication of the differential duty demand was six months. On these facts, the second notice could not be sustained, as it was both without jurisdiction and barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The second show cause notice was invalid and time-barred, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A second show cause notice for the same duty period cannot be sustained when the earlier notice remains pending and the later notice is issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.

---