https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113623 In revisional proceedings over a price-list approval, limitation was governed by Section 35A(4), not the notice period for short-levy or erroneous refund under Section 11A, so a notice issued within one year was timely. The revisional authority could, however, only correct or supplement the existing record; it could not introduce a fresh valuation case under Rule 6(b)(i) when the original proceedings were confined to Rule 6(b)(ii). An addendum that shifted the basis to comparable sales therefore travelled beyond the record and exceeded revisional jurisdiction. The principal legal point is that revisional power cannot be used to make out a new case on a distinct and potentially time-barred ground. en-us Thu, 21 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2012 12:17:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113623 In revisional proceedings over a price-list approval, limitation was governed by Section 35A(4), not the notice period for short-levy or erroneous refund under Section 11A, so a notice issued within one year was timely. The revisional authority could, however, only correct or supplement the existing record; it could not introduce a fresh valuation case under Rule 6(b)(i) when the original proceedings were confined to Rule 6(b)(ii). An addendum that shifted the basis to comparable sales therefore travelled beyond the record and exceeded revisional jurisdiction. The principal legal point is that revisional power cannot be used to make out a new case on a distinct and potentially time-barred ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113623