https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165577 A demand for excise duty treated as a short levy could not be sustained without prior notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The notices themselves showed that the duty was being recovered as a short levy, so the mandatory notice procedure had to be followed before recovery. Rule 173-I(i) did not cure the defect because it only permitted assessment on the basis of returns and did not dispense with notice after the alleged short levy was discovered. The demand notices and the appellate order were therefore quashed. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:24:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165577 A demand for excise duty treated as a short levy could not be sustained without prior notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The notices themselves showed that the duty was being recovered as a short levy, so the mandatory notice procedure had to be followed before recovery. Rule 173-I(i) did not cure the defect because it only permitted assessment on the basis of returns and did not dispense with notice after the alleged short levy was discovered. The demand notices and the appellate order were therefore quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165577