Excise limitation under a different statute does not bar duty demand, and a revised demand cannot be recharacterised later.

Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 did not govern the demand because the duty on rectified spirit was exigible under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1950, not under the scheme invoked by the appellants; the limitation plea therefore failed and the demand was not time-barred. The challenge to the revised demand also failed because the earlier proceedings accepted prospective application of the circular, and the impugned notice was treated on the record as a revised demand that was not disputed in the rejoinder. The duty demand survived both objections and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the six-month limitation in Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 applied to the demand for duty on rectified spirit consumed by the appellants. (ii) Whether the appellants could challenge the revised demand raised pursuant to the earlier circular and proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the six-month limitation in Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 applied to the demand for duty on rectified spirit consumed by the appellants.

Analysis: The duty on rectified spirit was not levied under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. It was exigible under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1950. Since the demand did not arise under the Rules relied upon by the appellants, the limitation period in Rule 11 had no application.

Conclusion: The limitation plea failed and the demand was not barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants could challenge the revised demand raised pursuant to the earlier circular and proceedings.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings showed that retrospective enforcement of the circular was not to be pressed, while prospective application was accepted. The respondents treated the impugned notice as a revised demand, and that position was not disputed in the rejoinder. In these circumstances, the challenge to the notice could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The challenge to the revised demand was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The demand for duty survived both objections, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A limitation provision governing recovery under a particular excise scheme does not apply where the duty is levied under a different enactment, and a revised demand accepted as such on the record cannot later be assailed on the same footing.

---