Extended limitation in excise demands requires specific suppression allegations, while pure legal objections can be raised on appeal.

Extended limitation under excise law cannot be invoked unless the show cause notice itself alleges fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty; mere reference to excise rules is insufficient, so the demand remained time-barred. A pure question of law that does not require fresh factual enquiry may be raised for the first time in appeal, and appellate consideration of the limitation objection was therefore permissible. Because the dispute was resolved on the notice language and the legal objection was entertainable at the appellate stage, no referable question of law arose and the reference application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand could be saved by the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the basis of the allegations in the show cause notice. (ii) Whether a new legal point not urged before the original authority could be raised at the appellate stage and in reference proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the demand could be saved by the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the basis of the allegations in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the language of the show cause notice and the recorded allegations. It held that the notice did not contain allegations sufficient to invoke the proviso relating to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere citation of excise rules in the notice did not amount to an allegation of suppression. On that basis, the demand was treated as barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period was not attracted and the demand remained time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a new legal point not urged before the original authority could be raised at the appellate stage and in reference proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a pure question of law not requiring fresh investigation of facts may be raised for the first time in appeal. Appellate powers are co-extensive with the powers of the original authority, subject to statutory limits, and there was no legal bar to considering the limitation objection at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The objection that the point could not be raised later was rejected, and the legal point was rightly entertainable at the appellate stage.

Final Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, because the limitation issue was decided on the notice itself and the appellate stage could validly entertain the legal contention; the reference application was therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of the extended limitation period under excise law requires allegations in the show cause notice sufficient to attract the proviso, and a pure question of law may be raised for the first time in appeal if it does not require fresh factual enquiry.

---