https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80374 The court ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the show cause notice should have been served to the firm rather than just the partners. It was determined that the firm is a separate legal entity under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The judgment also concluded that Rule 10, with a one-year time limit, applied to the demand period, not Rule 10A. As the demand was time-barred under Rule 10, the fine and penalty imposed were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in full, granting relief to the appellants. 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 The court ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the show cause notice should have been served to the firm rather than just the partners. It was determined that the firm is a separate legal entity under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The judgment also concluded that Rule 10, with a one-year time limit, applied to the demand period, not Rule 10A. As the demand was time-barred under Rule 10, the fine and penalty imposed were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in full, granting relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80374