JUDGMENT : A.C. Rao, J. 1. By way of this Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellants have challenged the Order Nos. A/12109-12111/2018, dated 7-9-2018 (Annexure-I) made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for convenience) in Appeal Nos. E/711, 712 and 713 filed by the appellants herein, with all consequential relief’s and benefits to the appellants and also prayed to hold and declare that the duty demand raised under show cause notices dated 22-10-2007 and 14-11-2007 (Annexure-F collectively) was barred by limitation and that the duty demand raised under these show cause notices has been unenforceable against the appellants. 1.1. This Court admitted the present appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that it was permissible to the Revenue to invoke larger period of limitation vide show cause notices' dated 22-10-2007 and 14-11-2007 when three show cause notices for larger period of limitation had been issued to the appellants in the past for the same cause of dispute?" 1.2. Considering the fact that the controversy involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass, this Court while admitting this Appeal vide order dated 21-2-2019, ordered to issue notice for final disposal and accordingly, this appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Facts giving rise to file present appeal are as under :- 2.1. The appellant has been manufacturing automobile parts and components. For such manufacture, moulds, dies and patterns are required and therefore the appellant has been procuring moulds/dies/patterns from open market in accordance with the designs and dimensions of ports and components proposed to be manufactured for particular customers. After using such moulds/dies/patterns for manufacture of automobile parts and components for particular customers, the appellant would sell such used moulds/dies/patterns to the customers by issuing commercial invoices, and price charged and recovered by selling patterns and moulds was recorded in the ledger and audited balance sheet. 2.2. Excise duty has been paid by the appellant on the actual price of the parts and components charged and recovered from the customers. 2.3. 2.2. Excise duty has been paid by the appellant on the actual price of the parts and components charged and recovered from the customers. 2.3. The case of the Revenue was that excise duty was paid by the appellant on the actual price charged for parts and components from the customers, but no excise duty was paid on the money/price recovered from the customers for selling moulds/dies/patterns. The Revenue therefore proposed to include in the price of parts and components manufactured by the appellant, the income from sales of patterns/moulds. 2.4. However, in the present proceedings, this issue of valuation or the addition of income from patterns sales is not involved. The issue involved in the present appeal is about invocation of extended period of limitation in raising duty demand on income of selling patterns/moulds. 2.5. On the basis of audit verification of the records of the appellant such as balance sheets for years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, excise duty of Rs. 3,38,562/- was demanded an income of pattern sales being Rs. 21,16,013/- taken from the balance sheets. In the first show cause notice issued on 25-7-2005 for the above period of F.Y. 2001-02 to 2003-04, extended period of limitation was invoked by resorting to the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act alleging that income from pattern sales was not disclosed in Central Excise invoices and hence there was intention to evade payment of duty. 2.6. Second show cause notice was issued on 18-9-2006 again invoking larger period of limitation, on the basis of income of sales of patterns and moulds taken from the balance sheets of the appellant company. The same allegation that amount of pattern sales was not shown on excise invoices was levelled for invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. 2.7. Third show cause notice was issued on 26-9-2006 on the basis of verification of ledger by the Audit party for year 2005-2006, and here also extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invoked on the same basis that income-from pattern sales was not disclosed on excise invoices. 2.8. 2.7. Third show cause notice was issued on 26-9-2006 on the basis of verification of ledger by the Audit party for year 2005-2006, and here also extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invoked on the same basis that income-from pattern sales was not disclosed on excise invoices. 2.8. On appeal before the Tribunal for the case of the first show cause notice dated 25-7-2005, the Tribunal held that raising of demand on the value of patterns was not justified because value of such moulds and dies could have been added in the assessable value of the final products manufactured by the appellant only on pro rata basis. The Tribunal also observed that the aspect of limitation was not dealt with by the lower authorities by taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the plea of the appellant that the figures of sales of patterns were picked up from the balance sheet which was a public document and hence no mala fide could be attributed to the appellant was also required to be taken into account. The case was remanded by the Tribunal. 2.9. On appeals involving the second and third show cause notices, the Tribunal has allowed the case of the appellant case relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nizam Sugar Factory reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) by observing that by a show cause notice dated 25-7-2005 (the date wrongly shown as 25-7-2004 in the Tribunal's order), demand was raised for the period 2001 to 2004 and therefore the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked while issuing further show cause notices. The Tribunal further held that all relevant facts were in knowledge of the authorities when first show cause notice was issued and therefore, there was no suppression of facts on part of the assessee. The Tribunal ultimately held that the demand of duty for extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. The tribunal also made reference to the balance sheet. 2.10. From the above, it is clear that the proceedings initiated by way of first, second and third show cause notices stand concluded in the favour of the appellant on the issue of time-bar, i.e. limitation in raising demand of duty. The tribunal also made reference to the balance sheet. 2.10. From the above, it is clear that the proceedings initiated by way of first, second and third show cause notices stand concluded in the favour of the appellant on the issue of time-bar, i.e. limitation in raising demand of duty. The Tribunal has held that invocation of extended period of limitation cannot be sustained because all relevant facts were in knowledge of the authorities when first show cause notice was issued, and there was no suppression of facts on part of the assessee. 2.11. The impugned proceedings : 2.11.1. Fourth show cause notice was issued on 22-10-2007 on the same basis i.e. audit verification of the balance sheet and ledgers of the appellant, and duty demand on income from sales of patterns involving years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 (up to February, 2006) was raised on the same allegation that the appellant has willfully suppressed the facts regarding pattern sales. Again extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Act was invoked. 2.11.2. Fifth show cause notice was issued on 14-1-2007 on the same basis of audit verification of balance sheet and ledgers, and duty demand on income from sales of patterns during year 2002-03 and 2003-04 was raised under this show cause notice issued on 14-11-2007. In this SCN also, the same allegation of willful suppression of facts regarding pattern sales was made for invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 2.11.3. The impugned order of the Tribunal: For fourth and fifth show cause notices, the Tribunal has upheld invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground that the fact in case of Nizam Sugar Factory decided by the Supreme Court was different because the subsequent show cause notice in that case was issued for the subsequent period invoking extended period, but in the present case, the period involved in the show cause notice was prior to the period involved in first three show cause notices, and therefore the ratio of the judgment in case of Mzam Sugar Factory cannot apply. The demand for extended period of limitation in respect of fourth and fifth show cause notices is upheld with penalty even though such demands were based on the same document, namely, audited balance sheets verified by the auditors. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard Mr. The demand for extended period of limitation in respect of fourth and fifth show cause notices is upheld with penalty even though such demands were based on the same document, namely, audited balance sheets verified by the auditors. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard Mr. Paresh Dave, Learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Mitesh Amin, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Revenue. 4. Submissions of the appellants : 4.1. Mr. Paresh Dave, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) that in a case where the Revenue issued a show cause notice to an assessee for a specific subject, it meant that the Revenue was aware about the dispute for which show cause notice proceedings were initiated, and therefore the Revenue cannot issue another show cause notice subsequently invoking larger period of limitation against the same assessee for the same subject matter. In case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), the first show cause notice was issued for the normal period of limitation and thereafter a subsequent show cause notice was issued invoking larger period of limitation and in such factual background, the Supreme Court has held that the subsequent show cause notice and invocation of larger period of limitation there under were impermissible. The ratio and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court is that once show cause notice proceedings were initiated against an assessee for a particular cause or a particular subject matter, then it meant that the Revenue was aware about such cause of dispute and therefore the Revenue was not authorized to subsequently issue another show cause notice for larger period of limitation involving the same cause of dispute. 4.2. Mr. Paresh Dave, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that this Court applied the principle flowing from the judgment of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) in case of Gujarat Ambiija Exports Ltd. v. UOI - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 159 (Guj.) where the factual position was absolutely similar to the present case. In Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. six show cause notices were issued to the assessee covering the period from September, 1999 to December, 2000/January, 2001. Thereafter, two further show cause notices came to be issued to the assessee for the period from July, 1998/October, 1998 to August, 1999, invoking extended period of limitation. In Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. six show cause notices were issued to the assessee covering the period from September, 1999 to December, 2000/January, 2001. Thereafter, two further show cause notices came to be issued to the assessee for the period from July, 1998/October, 1998 to August, 1999, invoking extended period of limitation. Thus, the subsequent show cause notices covered the period, which was prior to the period covered under the first set of show cause notices, which is the fact similar to the present case. However, this Court has held that invocation of extended period of limitation while issuing subsequent show cause notice was illegal and unauthorized because the Central Excise authorities were fully aware about all relevant facts when first set of show cause notices was issued. 4.3. Mr. Paresh Dave, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the distinction drawn by the Tribunal in the present case is illegal and contrary to the settled legal principle about invocation of extended period of limitation. It is submitted that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that one cannot make out from the balance sheet that the income was from sales of patterns which were used in the manufacture of the final products for the buyers. On this basis, allegations of suppression of facts and mis-declaration are upheld against the appellant. But while deciding previous Appeal Nos. E/2986/2006 and E/1181-1182/2007, the Tribunal has held that figures of sales of patterns having been picked up from the balance sheets which were public documents, there was no suppression of facts by the appellant as regards sales of such patterns and hence larger period of limitation was not available to the Revenue. Furthermore, all the show cause notices, were issued on basis of audit verification of balance sheets only and therefore there was no suppression in respect of demand raised in fourth and fifth show cause notices. It is submitted that thus, the basis on which the impugned order is passed is not only illegal, but is also contrary to the final decisions rendered by the Tribunal in previous cases of the appellant herein, and hence unreasonable also. 5. Submissions of the revenue : 5.1. Mr. Mitesh Amin, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has opposed the present appeal. He has contended that no error or illegality has been committed by the respondent authority in issuing the impugned order. 5. Submissions of the revenue : 5.1. Mr. Mitesh Amin, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has opposed the present appeal. He has contended that no error or illegality has been committed by the respondent authority in issuing the impugned order. He has contended that the respondent authority has power, authority and jurisdiction to issue such notice. 5.2. Mr. Amin, further contended that there was new material and there was statement of Mr. D.T. Soni. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned notice is issued on the same facts. It is contended that the respondent department has established that there was suppression of the fact and mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. It is contended that until the balance sheet is filed by the appellant, the respondent department had no source to know that there was suppression by the appellant. 5.3. Mr. Amin, further contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that the decision of Nizam Sugar Factory is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is contended that in previously show cause notices were issued for the subsequent period and therefore, the Tribunal set aside the same relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory, however, the impugned notices are issued for the previous period and not for the subsequent period and therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory is not applicable and the tribunal has rightly not applied the ratio laid down in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory and rightly passed the impugned order. 5.4. Mr. Amin further contended that as per Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, consideration equal to the value of the goods supplied free of cost has to be included in the assemble value. Therefore, as per the explicit provision, the amortization cost of pattern was rightly included by the lower authority in the assessable value of the final product. It is further contended that as per Rule 6, amortization cost is to be included over and above the transaction value. Therefore, as per the explicit provision, the amortization cost of pattern was rightly included by the lower authority in the assessable value of the final product. It is further contended that as per Rule 6, amortization cost is to be included over and above the transaction value. It is contended that even if the submission of the appellant is accepted that as per the Chartered Accountant's Certificate, the amortized cost of pattern is included, since the said amortization cost as claimed by the appellant has been included in the transaction value, it is not amortization cost but a part and partial of the transaction value. Therefore, amortization costs of pattern used by the appellant has to be included in the transaction value. Therefore, the demand on merit is clearly sustainable. 5.5. Mr. Amin has further contended that the appellant has shown income from sales of pattern in the balance sheet from which no one can make out that whether the sales pattern is related to those pattern which were used in the manufacture of final product for buyer by using pattern belonging to the buyer. Therefore, there is clear suppression of facts and mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the authority has rightly issued the impugned notice and the tribunal has rightly passed the order impugned in the present appeal. 6. The law about invocation of extended period of limitation is well settled. Only in a case where the assessee knew that certain information was required to be disclosed and yet the assessee deliberately did not disclose such information, the case would be that of suppression of facts. When the Excise Officers called or certain information and the assessee did not disclose the same or deliberately disclosed wrong information, that would be a case of willful misstatement. Even in cases where certain information was not disclosed as the assessee was under a bona fide impression that it was not duty bound to disclose such information, it would not be a case of suppression of facts as held by the Supreme Court in the well-known cases of Padmini Products and Chemphar Drugs & Liniments reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) and 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.), respectively. 6.1. What is "suppression" has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. 6.1. What is "suppression" has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), and it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that mere omission to give correct information was not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate and to stop the payment of duty. In the previous case like Messrs Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) also, the Supreme Court has held that a bona fide doubt as to non-dutiability of goods was sufficient for the assessee to challenge the demand on the point of imitation. However, mere failure in giving correct information would not be a case where the Revenue can invoke extended period of limitation. 6.2. The issue involved in the present appeal is about invocation of extended period of limitation in raising duty demand on income of selling patterns/moulds. 6.3. Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, a notice for any duty of excise not levied or short-levied was required to be issued within a period of one year from the relevant date. The term "relevant date" is defined under sub-section (3)(ii) of Section 11A to mean the date on which a periodical return required to be filed by a manufacturer was filed. By virtue of Rule 173G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which were in operation at the relevant time, the appellant as a manufacturer of excisable goods was required to file a monthly return in respect of excisable goods removed and duty paid during a month within 10 days of the next month. The period of limitation of one year would thus commence from the 10th day of the next month for any particular month to which short-levy or short payment of excise duty related. 6.4. But in case of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty by the manufacturer, a show cause notice could be issued within the extended period of five years, instead of the normal period of one year. For invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act, the Revenue must prove that the assessee was guilty of fraud or collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of duty. Otherwise, any demand made by virtue of a notice issued under the proviso to Section 11A(1) invoking extended period of limitation would be time-barred, and hence impermissible and unenforceable. 6.5. The controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra). In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed and held as under:- "8. Without going into the question regarding classification and marketability and leaving the same open, we intend to dispose of the appeals on the point of limitation only. This Court in the case of P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (2003) 3 SCC 599 : 2003 (153) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.) has taken the view that in a case in which a show cause notice has been issued for the earlier period on certain set of facts, then, on the same set of facts another SCN based on the same/similar set of facts invoking the extended period of limitation on the plea of suppression of facts by the assessee cannot be issued as the facts were already in the knowledge of the department. It was observed in para 14 as follows: "14. We have indicated above the facts which make it clear that the question whether M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was a related person has been the subject-matter of consideration of the Excise authorities at different stages, when the classification was filed, when the first show cause notice was issued in 1985 and also at the stage when the second and the third show cause notices were issued in 1988. At all these stages, the necessary material was before the authorities. They had then taken the view that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. At all these stages, the necessary material was before the authorities. They had then taken the view that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. If the authorities came to the conclusion subsequently that it was a related person, the same fact could not be treated as a suppression of fact on the part of the assessee so as to saddle with the liability of duty for the larger period by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act. So far as the assessee is concerned, it has all along been contending that they were not related persons, so, it cannot be said to be guilty of not filling up the declaration in the prescribed proforma indicating related persons. The necessary facts had been brought to the notice of the authorities at different intervals from 1985 to 1988 and further they had dropped the proceedings accepting that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. It is, there fore, futile to contend that there has been suppression of fact in regard M/s. Pharmachem Distributors being a related person. On that score, we are unable to uphold the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for making the demand for the extended period." This judgment was followed by this Court in the case of ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in (2004) 13 SCC 719 : 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C). In para 4, it was observed: "4. In the case of M/s. P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in [ 2003 (2) SCALE 390 ], the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the Department has earlier issued show cause notices in respect of the same subject-matter. It has been held that in such circumstances, it could not be said that there was any willful suppression or misstatement and that therefore, the extended period under Section 11A could not be invoked." Similarly, this judgment was again followed in the case of Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 151 (S.C.)]. It was observed in para 6: "......On the ratio laid down in this judgment it must be held that once the earlier show cause notice, on similar issue has been' dropped, it can no longer be said that there is any suppression. It was observed in para 6: "......On the ratio laid down in this judgment it must be held that once the earlier show cause notice, on similar issue has been' dropped, it can no longer be said that there is any suppression. The extended period of limitation would thus not be available. We are unable to accept the submission that earlier show cause notice was for a subsequent period and/or it cannot be taken into consideration as it is not known when that show cause notice was dropped. If the Department wanted to take up such contentions it is for them to show that that show cause notice was not relevant and was not applicable. The Department has not brought any of those facts on record. Therefore, the Department cannot now urge that findings of the Collector that that show cause notice was on a similar issue and for an identical amount is not correct." 9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same, hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant. 10. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal Nos. 2747 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2003 filed by the assessees are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside on the question of limitation only. The demands raised against them as well as the penalty, if any, are dropped. Civil Appeals @ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9271-9278 of 2003 filed by the department are dismissed. Questions of classification and marketability are left open. Parties shall bear their own costs." 6.6. It is pertinent to note that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), has been followed by this Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited (supra) and in the similar facts, in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited (supra), this Court has observed and held as under:- "16. On a conjoint reading of the earlier show cause notices and the present show cause notices, it is apparent that the facts stated therein as well as the allegations made therein are more or less similar. The only difference, as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the respondents is that in the impugned show cause notices, there is a reference to intelligence gathered by the central excise authorities and statements recorded. However, though there is a reference to visit by the central excise officers to the factory of the petitioners, the date of such visit has not been mentioned. However, the statements of the authorized signatory have been recorded on 17-1-2000 and 23-3-2000, statement of the President (Works) of the Unit No. 1 had been recorded on 21-3-2000 and 24-5-2000 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and statement of the Director had been recorded on 19-12-2000. In this regard, it may be pertinent to note that the earlier show cause notices came to be issued on 4-5-2000, 12-1-2001 and 26-6-2001, that is after most of the statements were recorded and as such, the reference to intelligence in the impugned show cause notices is of no consequence, since all the said facts were already before the central excise authorities at the time when the earlier show cause notices came to be issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned show cause notices are based on new or different facts than the earlier ones. Thus, the present case would stand squarely covered by the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court inasmuch as, when the earlier show cause notices had been issued for the later period on the same set of facts, the facts were within the knowledge of the Department. In the circumstances while issuing the present show cause notices, the same/similar set of facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. In the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation in respect of earlier periods by issuing the impugned show cause notices, on the plea of suppression of facts by the petitioners, as the facts were already in the knowledge of the Department. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. In the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation in respect of earlier periods by issuing the impugned show cause notices, on the plea of suppression of facts by the petitioners, as the facts were already in the knowledge of the Department. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned show cause notices F.No. V. 15/15-60/OA/2002 and F.No. V. 15/15-61/OA/2002, both dated 2-7-2002 (Annexure "F" collectively) are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs." 6.7. It is pertinent to note that in the case of the appellants, all the show cause notices were issued on basis of audit verification of balance sheets only and therefore there was no suppression in respect of demand raised in fourth and fifth show cause notices. Thus, the basis on which the impugned order is passed is not only illegal, but is also contrary to the final decisions rendered by the Tribunal in previous cases of the appellant herein, and hence unreasonable also. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that it was permissible to the Revenue to invoke larger period of limitation vide show cause notices dated 22-10-2007 and 14-11-2007 when three show cause notices for larger period of limitation had been issued to the appellants in past for the same cause of dispute. 6.8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and on a conjoint reading of the earlier show cause notices and the impugned show cause notices, it is apparent that the facts, stated therein as well as the allegations made therein are more or less similar. The only difference, as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the respondents is that in the impugned show cause notices, there is a reference to intelligence gathered by the central excise authorities and statements recorded, more particularly statement of Mr. D.T. Soni. It may be pertinent to note that the earlier also show cause notices were issued and same are quashed and set aside and therefore, the reference to intelligence in the impugned show cause notices is of no consequence/since all the said facts were already before the central excise authorities at the time when the earlier show cause notices came to be issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned show cause notices are based on new or different facts than the earlier ones. The present case is squarely covered by the above referred decisions more particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Niazm Sugar Factory (supra) as well as decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (supra). Further when the earlier show cause notices had been issued for the later period on the same set of facts, the facts were within the knowledge of the Department and earlier notices were quashed by the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), however, impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal on the ground that since the show cause notices are for the prior period, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizsam Sugar Factory (supra) is not applicable. The said view of the tribunal is not correct. The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam sugar Factory. Even the while issuing the present show cause notices, the same and/or similar set of facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. Under the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation in respect of earlier periods by issuing the impugned show cause notices/on the plea of suppression of facts by the appellants, as the facts were already in the knowledge of the Department. 6.9. The decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. (supra) is complete answer to the contentions raised by Mr. Amin, Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue. In the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. also there were statements recorded. However, this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), quashed and set aside the notices, similar to the present case. Therefore, there is no substance in any of the submissions of the Revenue more particularly that there is statement of Mr. D.T. Soni and same is new fact and evidence. 7. However, this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory (supra), quashed and set aside the notices, similar to the present case. Therefore, there is no substance in any of the submissions of the Revenue more particularly that there is statement of Mr. D.T. Soni and same is new fact and evidence. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the question at law formulated vide order dated 21-2-2019 is answered in favour of the appellants-assessee and against the Revenue. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. 8. Consequently, the impugned show cause notices dated 22-10-2007 and 14-11-2007 (Annexure-F collectively) as well as the Impugned Order No. A/12109-12111/2018, dated 7-9-2018 (Annexure-I) are hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the demand raised under show cause notices dated 22-10-2007 and 14-11-2007 (Annexure-F) is barred by limitation and the duty demand raised under the said show cause notices has been unenforceable against the appellants. The respondent is directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the appellant.