Properly issued excise notice and specific suppression allegation are required before extended limitation can sustain a demand.

A show cause notice in excise proceedings was invalid where it was addressed to an individual partner in the name of the business concern, rather than being issued to the partnership firm as the legally liable entity. The notice did not indicate that the partner was proceeded against in that capacity, so duty liability could not be fastened in that manner. The extended period of limitation also could not be invoked because the notice contained no specific allegation of suppression, which was a statutory condition for the larger period. The demand was therefore unsustainable beyond the normal limitation period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the show cause notice was valid when it was issued to the partner in the name of the firm and not to the partnership firm itself; (ii) whether, in the absence of a specific allegation of suppression, the extended period of limitation under the excise law could be invoked.

Issue (i): whether the show cause notice was valid when it was issued to the partner in the name of the firm and not to the partnership firm itself.

Analysis: The notice was addressed and served on an individual with reference to the business concern, without indicating that he was being proceeded against as a partner or that the notice was issued to the firm as such. In excise law, liability for duty on goods manufactured by a partnership business must be fastened on the firm, and not on the partners personally, unless the notice is properly issued to the firm.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be invalid.

Issue (ii): whether, in the absence of a specific allegation of suppression, the extended period of limitation under the excise law could be invoked.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not contain a specific allegation of suppression as required for invocation of the extended limitation period. In the absence of such an , the statutory condition for applying the larger period was not satisfied, and the demand could not be sustained beyond the normal period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the proceedings were unsustainable both on account of improper notice and because the demand was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice must be properly issued to the legally liable entity, and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a clear allegation of suppression in the notice.

---