https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85612 A second show cause notice issued during de novo proceedings did not create a fresh cause of action or render the demand time-barred, because the original proceedings had already been validly initiated by the Superintendent under Rule 57-I. The later notice by the Assistant Collector was treated as only a further step in the same matter after remand, and it did not alter the character of the proceedings. The earlier notice continued to support the de novo adjudication, so the limitation objection based on the second notice was rejected and the demand was sustained in favour of the Revenue. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:34:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85612 A second show cause notice issued during de novo proceedings did not create a fresh cause of action or render the demand time-barred, because the original proceedings had already been validly initiated by the Superintendent under Rule 57-I. The later notice by the Assistant Collector was treated as only a further step in the same matter after remand, and it did not alter the character of the proceedings. The earlier notice continued to support the de novo adjudication, so the limitation objection based on the second notice was rejected and the demand was sustained in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85612