RAJASHEKARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of paints, pigments, colours, varnishes, etc. Among the several items manufactured by the petitioner, 'super Blueem' used as a decorative water-proof cement, is one of the items supplied to M/s. Garware paints Limited, Bombay, copy of which is produced as Annexure 'e' under which the petitioner undertook to supply the Bluccm cement paint manufactured by it to M/s. Garware paints Ltd. The said cement paint is markctted by M/s. Garwar Paints under the brand name 'blucem'. The duration of such supply covered by the agreement was for the period 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1984. The other clauses in the said agreement relates to minimum monthly supply and the supervision by M/s. Garware Paints Limited as to quality control etc. ( 2 ) ON 24-8-1983, petitioner filed the first classification list in Form I giving out the particulars of all excisable goods. Item I in the list of items referred to 'super Blucem'. A concessional rate of 2% levy was claimed by the petitioner under notification No. 74/78 dated 1. 3. 1978. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector on 13-2-1984 with effect from 1-4-1983. Pursuant to the approved classification list, monthly returns were filed by the petitioner in Form RT 12 for the subsequent periods covered by the agreement and the petitioner was assessed on the basis of the approved classification list. ( 3 ) WHEN matters stood thus, a show-cause notice dated 15-9-1984 was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure 'f' proposing to revoke the approval and demand short-levy of 2% duty ad valorum. This notice was issued invoking the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central excise and Salt Act, 1944 which permits initiation of action within five years from the relevant date, on the ground of fraud, wilful misstatcment and suppression of facts and the like. ( 4 ) A reply was filed to the said show-cause notice as per Annexure 'g' and it was contended that supply of Bluccm made by the petitioner to m/s. Garware Paints Limited was on principal to principal basis covered by an independent agreement between the parties. ( 4 ) A reply was filed to the said show-cause notice as per Annexure 'g' and it was contended that supply of Bluccm made by the petitioner to m/s. Garware Paints Limited was on principal to principal basis covered by an independent agreement between the parties. The initiation of the proceedings to re-open the assessment was also opposed having regard to the approval which was granted by the Department after it was satisfied about the relationship between the parlies and also as to the proper rate of duty that was leviable on the basis of the Notification No. 74/78 and all the relevant materials produced by the petitioner before the first respondent. ( 5 ) THE Assistant Collector proceeded to make an order on 21-8-1985 as per Annexure 'a' confirming the duty demanded in the show cause notice for the period 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1984 in a sum of Rs. 79,435. 19. The petitioner was also directed to pay the differential duty on all the clearance made from 1-4-1982 onwards adopting the selling price of M/s. Garware Paints Ltd. , bombay. This order of the Assistant Collector is challenged in this Writ Petition. ( 6 ) THE findings recorded by the Assistant Collector both for invoking the proviso to Section 11 -A and to revoke the approval of the classification list granted to the petitioner and the demand made to pay the differential duty, arc the subject-matter of this Writ Petition. ( 7 ) ON the question of limitation, the first respondent held that the notice was valid in law in view of the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed in their classification list, information regarding their agreement with M/s. Garwarc paints Ltd. for manufacture and supply of cement-paint under the brand name 'bluccm'. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the several clauses of the agreement, the Assistant Collector held that the manufacture by the petitioner of the cement paint under the brand name 'blucem' was 'for and on behalf of M/s. Garware Paints Limited, bombay. On the basis of this conclusion, the Assistant Collector also held that the petitioner was j not entitled to the concessional rate under the notification of 74/78. The Assistant Collector therefore demanded the difference of duty from the petitioner on adopting the price of M/s. Garware paints Ltd. , as the rate for the purpose of levy of duty. On the basis of this conclusion, the Assistant Collector also held that the petitioner was j not entitled to the concessional rate under the notification of 74/78. The Assistant Collector therefore demanded the difference of duty from the petitioner on adopting the price of M/s. Garware paints Ltd. , as the rate for the purpose of levy of duty. ( 9 ) TWO points arise for decision on the arguments advanced by Sri Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation? (ii) Whether on facts, the Assistant Collector was justified in revoking the approval granted to the petitioner earlier, demanding differential duty? ( 10 ) AS regards limitation, it was argued by the learned Counsel that Department's finding that there was short-levy on account of the failure of the asscssee to supply full information at the time the classification list was approved, cannot be justified on facts. The learned Counsel has demonstrated that apart from filing the classification list, monthly returns were filed in Form rt 12 for the remaining period covered by the agreement and the assessments were completed on the basis of the approved classification list. It is also argued for the petitioner that along with the monthly returns in Form Rt 12, invoices were filed showing that the entire cement paint manufactured by the petitioner under the brand name Blucem was supplied to M/s. Garware paints. On the basis of these facts, it is argued by the learned Counsel that the Department could not have invoked the proviso to Section 11-A that there was suppression of facts by the petitioner resulting in the short-levy. Sri Indra kumar has produced some invoices, gate-passes and delivery notes in support of the factual position. ( 11 ) IT is also contended by the learned Counsel that the show-cause notice is liable to be quashed, since it docs not contain any of the ingredients required to be satisfied under Section 11 A proviso. In support of this contention, the --- *** --- .