Jurisdictional defect in extended-period excise notice vitiated the demand; later notice could not cure the foundational invalidity.

Under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, a show cause notice invoking the extended period had to be issued by the competent authority. The original notice was issued by an Assistant Collector who lacked jurisdiction after the relevant legal change, so the foundational notice was invalid. That jurisdictional defect could not be cured by later adjudication, and the subsequent revised notice could not validly combine with the defective notice to sustain the demand. The demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty could be sustained when the original show cause notice invoking the extended period was issued by an lacking jurisdiction and the subsequent revised notice could not cure the defect.

Analysis: Under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, show cause notices invoking the extended period were required to be issued by the competent authority. The original notice in the present matter was issued by the Assistant Collector, who was not competent to invoke the extended period after the relevant change in law. Once the foundational notice was without jurisdiction, the defect could not be cured by later adjudication. The revised notice issued subsequently also could not validly combine the two notices or sustain a demand founded on an initial jurisdictional infirmity.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as admissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand under the extended period cannot be sustained where the foundational show cause notice is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, and such defect cannot be cured by a subsequent notice or adjudication.

---