Fresh show cause notice on the same excise duty controversy was impermissible despite a different ground of demand.

A second show cause notice for central excise duty on the same period and same deduction for post-removal expenses was held impermissible. Even though the later notice relied on a different factual basis, it still targeted the same duty controversy already under adjudication, and the Department could not reopen the matter by changing the ground of demand. The ruling prevents repeated notices on the same period and issue once investigation and adjudication have commenced or been completed. The Revenue's appeal was rejected, leaving the assessee's relief undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second show cause notice for demanding central excise duty could be issued for the same period on a different ground when the same deduction on account of post-removal expenses had already been the subject of adjudication.

Analysis: The demand in both sets of proceedings related to the same post-removal expenses and covered the same period. The later notice was based on a different factual foundation, but it still sought duty on the very same deduction already under adjudication. Once the Department had initiated investigation, issued notices, and adjudicated part of the controversy for the same period, it could not keep issuing fresh notices on the same issue by changing the basis of demand. Acceptance of such a course would permit repeated proceedings indefinitely on the same period and controversy.

Conclusion: A second show cause notice for the same period on the same issue was not permissible. The Revenue's appeal was rejected and the relief remained in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that, where the same demand period and controversy have already been adjudicated or are pending adjudication, the Department cannot reopen the matter through a fresh notice merely by advancing a different ground.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh show cause notice cannot be issued for the same period and same duty controversy by merely changing the ground of demand after the matter has already been adjudicated or is under adjudication.

---