JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the assessee against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, can be disposed of in favour of the appellant on a very short ground. 2. The assessee was issued a notice dated 10th December, 1981, to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon it under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and why Central Excise duty should not be collected from it on goods cleared without payment of the same during the year 1980-81. The notice, it is common ground, was issued after the expiration of the period of six months. It could, therefore, have been issued only upon the basis that the assessee was guilty of fraud or of collusion or of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or of contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules with intent to evade payment of Excise duty; this because, by the time the show cause notice was issued, Rule 9(2) had been amended to incorporate therein the period specified in Section 11A of the Act. The show cause notice does not set out any particulars in respect of fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention with intention to evade the payment of Excise duty. Not only does it not give any such particulars, it does not even make a bare allegation. 3. This Court has held that the party to whom a show cause notice of this kind is issued must be made aware of the allegation against it. This is a requirement of natural justice. Unless the assessee is put to such notice, he has no opportunity to meet the case against him. This is all the more so when a larger period of limitation can be invoked on a variety of grounds. Which ground is alleged against the assessee must be made known to him, and there is no scope for assuming that the ground is implicit in the issuance of the show cause notice. [See Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Limited, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 and Raj Bahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 ]. 4. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal under appeal is set aside. [See Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Limited, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 and Raj Bahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 ]. 4. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal under appeal is set aside. The bank guarantee given by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 4th April, 1986, as varied by the order dated 1st September, 1986, shall stand discharged. Any payment or deposit made by the appellant pursuant to these orders shall be refunded. 5. There shall be no order as to costs.