ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the show cause notice dated 20.06.2025, issued under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’), alleging that the issue notice is beyond limitation. 2. It is further alleged that the notice itself could not have been issued under the Excise Act to the petitioners, who were not the manufacturers, but are the proprietors concerned for engaging trading business and have received goods from another manufacturers. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on Provisions of Section 11A of the Act to submit that any notice issued after a period of five years from the relevant date, would have no force and the same deserves to be quashed on the same that count alone. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ J.K. Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 1987(32) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.). 5. We have considered the submissions and also perused the judgment passed by the Apex Court. 6. It is a case where the petitioners have shown themselves as manufacturers and supplied goods to the retailers and also collected GST, the so called manufacturers from which they alleged to have received goods, were never paid any GST nor any invoice was issued in their name. The question, therefore, arises whether the petitioners can be said to be the retailers or suppliers, and not the manufacturers. The issue requires to be examined by the Excise Authority after they receive the reply and the facts which are brought on record. 7. As regards, the issuance of notice under Section 11A of the Act is concerned, we find that the period for which the notice has been issued, starts from FY 2018-2019 upto FY 2021-2022. 8. Provision of Section 11A of the Act reads as under : [11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short- levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. 8. Provision of Section 11A of the Act reads as under : [11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short- levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. — (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short- levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,— (a) the Central Excise Officer shall, within [two years] from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; (b) the person chargeable with duty may, before service of notice under clause (a), pay on the basis of,— (i) his own ascertainment of such duty; or (ii) the duty ascertained by the Central Excise Officer, the amount of duty along with interest payable thereon under Section 11 -AA. (2) The person who has paid the duty under clause (b) of sub-section (1), shall inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub- section in respect of the duty so paid or any penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (3) Where the Central Excise Officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub-section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub- section and the period of [two years] shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (2). (4) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by the reason of— (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) any wilful misstatement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 11AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice. [* * *] (7A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) or sub-section (4), the Central Excise Officer may, serve, subsequent to any notice or notices served under any of those sub- sections, as the case may be, a statement, containing the details of duty of central excise not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded for the subsequent period, on the person chargeable to duty of central excise, then, service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under the aforesaid sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for the subsequent period are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice or notices. (8) Where the service of notice is stayed by an order of a court or tribunal, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period of [two years] referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or five years referred to in sub-section (4), as the case may be. (8) Where the service of notice is stayed by an order of a court or tribunal, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period of [two years] referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or five years referred to in sub-section (4), as the case may be. (9) Where any appellate authority or tribunal or court concludes that the notice issued under sub-section (4) is not sustainable for the reason that the charges of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty has not been established against the person to whom the notice was issued, the Central Excise Officer shall determine the duty of excise payable by such person for the period of [two years], deeming as if the notice were issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1). (10) The Central Excise Officer shall, after allowing the concerned person an opportunity of being heard, and after considering the representation, if any, made by such person, determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice. (11) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of duty of excise under sub-section (10)— (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within [two years] from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4). (12) Where the appellate authority or tribunal or court modifies the amount of duty of excise determined by the Central Excise Officer under sub-section (10), then the amount of penalties and interest under this section shall stand modified accordingly, taking into account the amount of duty of excise so modified. (13) Where the amount as modified by the appellate authority or tribunal or court is more than the amount determined under sub- section (10) by the Central Excise Officer, the time within which the interest or penalty is payable under this Act shall be counted from the date of the order of the appellate authority or tribunal or court in respect of such increased amount. (14) Where an order determining the duty of excise is passed by the Central Excise Officer under this section, the person liable to pay the said duty of excise shall pay the amount so determined along with the interest due on such amount whether or not the amount of interest is specified separately. (15) The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (14) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the recovery of interest where interest payable has not been paid or part paid or erroneously refunded. [(16) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a case where the liability of duty not paid or short-paid is self-assessed and declared as duty payable by the assessee in the periodic returns filed by him, and in such case, recovery of non-payment or short- payment of duty shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed.] Explanation 1.— For the purposes of this section and Section 11 -AC, — (a) “refund” includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (b) “relevant date” means,— (i) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, and no periodical return as required by the provisions of this Act has been filed, the last date on which such return is required to be filed under this Act and the rules made thereunder; (ii) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid and the return has been filed the date on which such return has been filed; (iii) in any other case, the date on which duty of excise is required to be paid under this Act or the rules made thereunder; (iv) in a case where duty of excise is provisionally assessed under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof; (v) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has been erroneously refunded, the date of such refund; (vi) in the case where only interest is to be recovered, the date of payment of duty to which such interest relates. Explanation 2.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any non-levy, short-levy, non-payment, short-payment or erroneous refund where no show cause notice has been issued before the date* on which the Finance Bill, 2015 receives the assent of the President, shall be governed by the provisions of Section 11A as amended by the Finance Act, 2015. 9. A close look of the aforesaid provisions reflects that in terms of Section 11A Sub-Clause (4), if any person evades payment of excise duty by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement, suppression of facts, then the action has to be taken and notices ought to be issued. 10. So far as Sub-Clause (e) is concerned, for that purpose, a relevant date as defined in the explanation, may be taken into consideration. However, in cases relating to fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement and suppression of facts, the limitation of five years would have no application, as it is from the date the fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts is revealed is the relevant date to count the limitation period of five years. 11. The law is well settled that cases where any fraud is found to have been played, the authorities would not be deprived from taking appropriate action against the concerned persons. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Bhor Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai ” 2016 16 Supreme Court Cases 643 has held in Para Nos.2 & 3, which reads as under : “2.The period in question is February, 1990 to February, 1991 and the show-cause notice was issued on 28.2.1995. In the show-cause notice it was alleged that the assessee had made misstatement to the effect that it would be clearing the goods at a higher rate i.e. as per the classification approved by the Revenue but it would doing so under protest, meaning thereby the assessee would be disputing the classification as approved by the Revenue. However, in spite thereof the goods were not cleared as per the classification approved by the Revenue but at a lower rate on the basis of classification which the assessee thought was the correct classification. Thus, on the basis of the misstatement larger period of limitation was invoked. We find that action of the Commissioner on limitation has been upheld by the Tribunal as well after giving the detailed reasons. Thus, on the basis of the misstatement larger period of limitation was invoked. We find that action of the Commissioner on limitation has been upheld by the Tribunal as well after giving the detailed reasons. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and are of the view that the opinion of the Tribunal in this behalf is perfectly correct. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal.” 12. The Apex Court in the case of “ Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. ” (1992) 1 SCC 534 has held that : “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 13. In “ S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath ” (1994) 1 SCC 1 has observed as under: “The Principle of ‘finality of litigation’ cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 14. In “ Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Ltd. ” (1995) 99 CWN 897 it has been held as under : “57. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 14. In “ Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Ltd. ” (1995) 99 CWN 897 it has been held as under : “57. Suppression of a material document which affects the condition of service of the petitioner, would amount to fraud in such matters. Even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with in such a situation. 58. It is now well known that a fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Thus, even if the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded in the service returns on the basis of the certificate produced by the petitioner, the same is not sacrosanct nor the respondent company would be bound thereby.” 15. We are of the view that once it is held that a judgment and decree has been obtained by practicing fraud, bar of limitation period will not be applied. 16. So far as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of “ J.K. Spinning” (supra) is concerned, we find that it is essentially on the Provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which do not take into consideration the cases relating to fraud. We, therefore, find that the reliance on the said judgment is misconceived. We do not find any case to entertain the present Civil Writ Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. All pending applications stand disposed of.