https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90815 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available because the Department had already issued an earlier show cause notice disclosing the same manufacturing process and facts without alleging suppression. On that record, the later notice could not plausibly rely on ignorance of the activity or on wilful suppression to enlarge the limitation period. As the demand was raised beyond the normal six-month period, it was time barred. With the foundation for penalty equally absent, no penalty could be sustained against the assessee. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90815 The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not available because the Department had already issued an earlier show cause notice disclosing the same manufacturing process and facts without alleging suppression. On that record, the later notice could not plausibly rely on ignorance of the activity or on wilful suppression to enlarge the limitation period. As the demand was raised beyond the normal six-month period, it was time barred. With the foundation for penalty equally absent, no penalty could be sustained against the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90815