Rule 10 limitation does not bar demand for improper removal of excisable goods; recovery follows the warehouse contravention scheme.

Improper removal of excisable goods from a warehouse was treated as a distinct contravention governed by Rule 160 and the related recovery and penalty machinery in Rules 161 and 162, not as a case of short-levy recoverable under Rule 10. Because Rule 10 applies only to duty short-levied through inadvertence, error, collusion, misconstruction, or misstatement, its limitation period did not bar the demand. The limitation objection therefore failed, although recovery had still to proceed in accordance with Rule 161.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised for duty on improperly removed excisable goods was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Excise Rules, or whether the case fell to be governed exclusively by Rules 160 to 162.

Analysis: Rule 10 applies where duty has been short-levied through inadvertence, error, collusion, misconstruction, or misstatement and recovery is sought within the prescribed period. The present case, however, concerned an independent contravention consisting of improper removal of goods from a warehouse, a situation specifically dealt with by Rule 160 and the consequential recovery and penalty machinery in Rules 161 and 162. Those provisions operate as a self-contained scheme for such offences, and the limitation in Rule 10 does not govern a demand falling within Rule 160. The proper mode of recovery must, however, conform to Rule 161.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, and the demand was not barred under Rule 10; the matter was governed by Rule 160 and the recovery had to proceed in accordance with Rule 161.

---