https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107764 A duty demand was treated as consequential to an earlier unchallenged order withdrawing the fortnightly duty payment facility and directing payment of dues. Because that prior order had become binding on the assessee, the subsequent non-payment triggered recovery proceedings and the demand was considered validly confirmed in consequence of that order. In that setting, a separate show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not to be necessary. The challenge to the duty confirmation therefore failed. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:35:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107764 A duty demand was treated as consequential to an earlier unchallenged order withdrawing the fortnightly duty payment facility and directing payment of dues. Because that prior order had become binding on the assessee, the subsequent non-payment triggered recovery proceedings and the demand was considered validly confirmed in consequence of that order. In that setting, a separate show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not to be necessary. The challenge to the duty confirmation therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107764