https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72101 Duty liability had already been asserted and the product had been treated as fabric since 1975; interim writ orders only restrained collection and implementation of that classification. When the writ petitions were dismissed and the stay was vacated, the department revived the earlier excise demand, and the later notice was treated as a continuation of the original proceedings rather than a fresh demand. On that basis, the ordinary limitation period for a new show cause notice did not apply, the demand was held not time-barred, and the challenge on limitation failed. en-us Tue, 17 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2011 18:42:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72101 Duty liability had already been asserted and the product had been treated as fabric since 1975; interim writ orders only restrained collection and implementation of that classification. When the writ petitions were dismissed and the stay was vacated, the department revived the earlier excise demand, and the later notice was treated as a continuation of the original proceedings rather than a fresh demand. On that basis, the ordinary limitation period for a new show cause notice did not apply, the demand was held not time-barred, and the challenge on limitation failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72101