https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92020 Central excise duty demand was found unsustainable because it had not been confirmed through valid statutory procedure after the amendment to section 11A. The record did not show a proper invocation of the extended-period mechanism by the competent authority, and no valid subsisting notice supported confirmation even for the normal period. The subsequent proceedings also did not comply with the earlier remand direction to place the records before the Collector for appropriate action. The demand confirmation was therefore procedurally defective, and the order-in-original could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:37:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92020 Central excise duty demand was found unsustainable because it had not been confirmed through valid statutory procedure after the amendment to section 11A. The record did not show a proper invocation of the extended-period mechanism by the competent authority, and no valid subsisting notice supported confirmation even for the normal period. The subsequent proceedings also did not comply with the earlier remand direction to place the records before the Collector for appropriate action. The demand confirmation was therefore procedurally defective, and the order-in-original could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92020