Extended limitation under Central Excise law fails when earlier notices covered the same facts and no suppression is shown.

The extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act could not be invoked where the duty demand for the same period and on substantially the same basis had already been covered by earlier show cause notices. Because the department had already issued and adjudicated notices raising the same grievance about use of cut-tobacco and the benefit under Notification No. 356/86-C.E., the relevant facts were within departmental knowledge. In the absence of suppression or misdeclaration, the proviso to Section 11A(1) was unavailable, and the demand was treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could be invoked when the duty demand for the same period and on substantially the same basis had already been the subject matter of earlier show cause notices.

Analysis: The duty demand in the present notice covered the same period that had already been covered by earlier show cause notices issued and adjudicated by the department. The earlier notices had raised substantially the same grievance regarding use of cut-tobacco and the benefit taken under Notification No. 356/86-C.E. In these circumstances, the relevant facts were already within the department's knowledge, and the requisite element of suppression or misdeclaration was not made out. The extended period could not, therefore, be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A was not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under tax recovery provisions cannot be invoked where the facts forming the basis of the demand were already within the department's knowledge and no suppression or misdeclaration is established.

---