Exemption notification scope and limitation on duty demands: exclusion stayed confined to the named notification, and later notices were time barred.

An exemption notification that expressly excludes only one specified notification cannot be enlarged by implication to cover successor notifications unless the later instrument or the exemption itself so provides. On limitation, a demand issued beyond the ordinary period cannot be sustained without legally sufficient grounds such as suppression of facts, fraud, or wilful misstatement, and a fresh demand raised after expiry of the applicable extended period is also time barred. Applied here, the exclusion under Notification No. 35/76 remained confined to Notification No. 210/73, and the second and third show cause notices failed on limitation, so the corresponding duty demands could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Notification No. 35/76 was confined to Notification No. 210/73 alone or could be extended to successor notifications; (ii) whether the demands raised under the second and third show cause notices were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Notification No. 35/76 was confined to Notification No. 210/73 alone or could be extended to successor notifications.

Analysis: The proviso in Notification No. 35/76 specifically excluded only factories covered by Notification No. 210/73. Since that proviso was not amended, its scope could not be enlarged to cover later superseding notifications merely because they succeeded Notification No. 210/73. A successor notification could affect the position only if the later instrument or Notification No. 35/76 itself made a specific reference bringing it within the exclusion.

Conclusion: The exclusion in Notification No. 35/76 was restricted to Notification No. 210/73 and did not automatically extend to successor notifications.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands raised under the second and third show cause notices were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The second notice was issued beyond the ordinary limitation period and the record did not disclose suppression of facts, fraud, or wilful misstatement to justify invocation of the extended period. The third notice introduced a fresh basis of demand for the first time and was issued after expiry of the extended limitation period applicable to such demands. On both counts, the demands could not survive.

Conclusion: The demands under the second and third show cause notices were time barred.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands under the second and third notices could not be sustained, and the proceedings arising from them failed, leaving the respondents entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification that expressly excludes only one specified notification cannot be enlarged by implication to cover successor notifications unless the instrument is amended or expressly extended, and a demand for short levy or non-levy must be raised within limitation absent legally sustainable grounds for extension.

---