Extended limitation under Central Excise law fails where earlier notice on same facts alleged no suppression or evasion.

The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act cannot be used without positive material showing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Where an earlier show-cause notice on the same transaction pattern had already been issued without any such allegation, and the relevant facts were disclosed to the department, a later notice on the same facts cannot rely on extended limitation. The demand in the second notice therefore remained barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue could invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of alleged suppression or wilful misstatement, where an earlier show-cause notice on the same subject matter had been issued without any such allegation.

Analysis: The earlier notice on the same transaction pattern had already been issued and adjudicated, and it did not contain any allegation of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. The second notice, though time-barred under the normal limitation period, sought to rely on the extended limitation clause. The Court applied the settled principle that the extended period is available only where there is positive material showing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. It accepted the Tribunal's finding that the relevant facts had been disclosed to the department and that no such culpable conduct was established. The Court also noted the consistency of the position with the earlier Supreme Court authorities relied upon by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand raised by the second show-cause notice remained barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department had earlier dealt with the same subject matter without alleging suppression or wilful misstatement, a subsequent notice on the same facts cannot invoke the extended period of limitation unless fresh and positive material shows intent to evade duty.

---