https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72489 Central excise duty liability on short-found cotton yarn could survive transfer of the business because Rule 230 preserved the Department's right to recover leviable duty from a successor in business, and a State relief undertaking notification could not extinguish liability under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the demand failed because the notice was issued beyond the six-month limitation period under old Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and no valid basis existed to apply a five-year period. The demand was therefore time-barred, with consequential relief to the assessee. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 18:27:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72489 Central excise duty liability on short-found cotton yarn could survive transfer of the business because Rule 230 preserved the Department's right to recover leviable duty from a successor in business, and a State relief undertaking notification could not extinguish liability under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the demand failed because the notice was issued beyond the six-month limitation period under old Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and no valid basis existed to apply a five-year period. The demand was therefore time-barred, with consequential relief to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72489