https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93081 Short-levy central excise demands had to comply with the limitation period under Rule 10 as it stood when the clearances occurred, so notices issued beyond the three-month period were time-barred except possibly for a narrow part of one notice. Disclosure of the agreement and sole distributorship arrangement to the department negatived any allegation of suppression of material facts. The assessee and buyer could not be treated as related persons for the earlier periods because Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act took effect only from 1-10-1975 and could not be applied retrospectively. The demand proceedings were therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:12:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93081 Short-levy central excise demands had to comply with the limitation period under Rule 10 as it stood when the clearances occurred, so notices issued beyond the three-month period were time-barred except possibly for a narrow part of one notice. Disclosure of the agreement and sole distributorship arrangement to the department negatived any allegation of suppression of material facts. The assessee and buyer could not be treated as related persons for the earlier periods because Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act took effect only from 1-10-1975 and could not be applied retrospectively. The demand proceedings were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93081