https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80374 A show-cause notice in an excise demand must be served on the person legally chargeable to duty; notice addressed only to partners was invalid against the firm, so the proceedings could not stand. A differential duty demand based on a revised valuation was treated as a short-levy or misstatement issue covered by Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the residuary Rule 10A could not be used. Because the notice was issued beyond the applicable one-year period, the demand was time-barred. With the notice invalid and the duty demand failing, the related confiscation, fine and penalty were also unsustainable. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:42:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80374 A show-cause notice in an excise demand must be served on the person legally chargeable to duty; notice addressed only to partners was invalid against the firm, so the proceedings could not stand. A differential duty demand based on a revised valuation was treated as a short-levy or misstatement issue covered by Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the residuary Rule 10A could not be used. Because the notice was issued beyond the applicable one-year period, the demand was time-barred. With the notice invalid and the duty demand failing, the related confiscation, fine and penalty were also unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80374