Extended limitation notice invalid when served after amendment removed Superintendent's authority, rendering demand and penalty void.

For invoking the extended limitation under Section 11A, the show cause notice had to be issued by the authority authorised under the amended statute and be valid when it became operative by service. Because the notice was signed before the amendment but served only after it took effect, the Superintendent lacked statutory competence at the relevant time. That defect was jurisdictional, so the notice was a nullity. The demand and penalty founded on it could not be sustained, and the proceedings were void ab initio.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice for the extended period of limitation under Section 11A, issued/signatured by the Superintendent of Central Excise but reaching the assessee after the amendment came into force, was valid and capable of sustaining the demand and penalty.

Analysis: The amended scheme of Section 11A required the Collector of Central Excise to serve the notice where the extended period was invoked. The notice in question was signed before the amendment but was despatched and served only after the amendment took effect. The decisive factor was not the date of signature alone, but the date on which the notice became operative by service on the assessee. Once the amendment had come into force, the Superintendent no longer had the statutory authority to issue the notice for the extended period. The notice was therefore not a valid initiation of proceedings, and the defect went to jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was invalid and the proceedings based on it were void ab initio. The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: For invoking the extended limitation under Section 11A, the notice must be issued by the authority designated by the amended statute and must be valid when it becomes operative by service; a notice issued by an lacking such competence is a nullity.

---