Excise limitation and transit loss principles: extended period requires specific suppression allegations, and full normal transit loss may be allowable.

Extended limitation under excise law could not be invoked because the show cause notices did not allege suppression of facts or wilful misstatement; the demand was therefore time-barred. Transit loss of clinker occurring during movement in open railway wagons, where goods were exposed to leakage, pilferage and normal handling loss, was treated as allowable in full. A fixed 2% cap on shortage was held arbitrary where the loss was accounted for and not shown to be fictitious or manipulated. The demand was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of allegations of suppression or wilful misstatement in the show cause notices. (ii) Whether the entire transit loss of clinker was allowable, or whether only 2% shortage could be treated as permissible under the relevant excise procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of allegations of suppression or wilful misstatement in the show cause notices.

Analysis: The notices covered periods beyond six months, but did not contain the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period. The governing principle applied was that the extended limitation under the excise law can operate only when the notice itself alleges suppression of facts, misstatement, or a similar intent to evade duty. The earlier High Court decision in the assessee's own case had already held that this requirement applies even to demands arising under the relevant Chapter X procedure.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the entire transit loss of clinker was allowable, or whether only 2% shortage could be treated as permissible under the relevant excise procedure.

Analysis: The goods were moved between factories in open railway wagons and were exposed to leakage, pilferage, and normal handling loss. The earlier High Court ruling had held that the expression relating to loss by natural causes was not confined to calamities alone, but extended to losses occurring in the normal course of transport and handling. It further held that restricting allowance to 2% was arbitrary where the shortage was accounted for and not shown to be fictitious or manipulated.

Conclusion: The entire shortage was held allowable as transit loss and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the demand was set aside, and the assessee was granted consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise demands based on transit loss, the extended limitation applies only when the notice contains specific es of suppression or wilful misstatement, and a restriction of transit loss to a fixed percentage cannot stand where the loss arises in the normal course of handling and transport and is not shown to be fictitious.

---