https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84167 Recovery proceedings for an erroneous excise refund were held maintainable when validly initiated under Rule 10 while it was in force, despite later deletion or substitution of that rule. The view that the department could proceed only by review under Section 35A was rejected, and the recovery notice was treated as valid. On classification, printed cartons were not treated as products of the printing industry; they were regarded as packaging goods in line with the applicable Supreme Court position. As a result, the claimed exemption failed and the departmental classification was sustained. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:29:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84167 Recovery proceedings for an erroneous excise refund were held maintainable when validly initiated under Rule 10 while it was in force, despite later deletion or substitution of that rule. The view that the department could proceed only by review under Section 35A was rejected, and the recovery notice was treated as valid. On classification, printed cartons were not treated as products of the printing industry; they were regarded as packaging goods in line with the applicable Supreme Court position. As a result, the claimed exemption failed and the departmental classification was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84167