Second show cause notice for the same period was unsustainable where an earlier demand remained pending and the later notice was time-barred.

A second show cause notice could not validly confirm duty for the same period where an earlier notice under Rule 96ZP(1) had already been issued and remained unadjudicated. The proper course was to decide the first notice before proceeding further, and the later demand was also vulnerable because it was time-barred. The revenue's reliance on a manufacturer not opting twice in one financial year was held inapplicable on these facts. The second demand and resulting order were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second show cause notice and demand could be issued for the same period under Rule 96ZP(3) when an earlier notice under Rule 96ZP(1) for that very period had already been issued but not adjudicated, and whether the later demand was time-barred.

Analysis: The earlier notice demanding duty for the disputed period had already been issued under Rule 96ZP(1), and it remained undecided. The later notice covered the same period and was issued after a substantial lapse of time. The proper course was to adjudicate the first notice before proceeding further. A second demand for the same period could not be sustained in these circumstances, particularly when the later demand was also hit by limitation. The observation relied upon by the Revenue concerning a manufacturer not opting twice in one financial year did not apply to the facts in issue.

Conclusion: The second demand and the impugned order were not sustainable and were rightly set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a duty demand for a specified period has already been raised by an earlier show cause notice and remains unadjudicated, a subsequent notice cannot validly be used to confirm duty again for the same period, especially when the later demand is time-barred.

---