https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166657 Duty demands were held time-barred where clearances were made under physical control after submission and certification of AR 1 forms, and the stocks had been disclosed and verified. In the absence of wilful suppression, wrongful declaration, or surreptitious removal, the matter fell only within error or mis-construction, attracting Rule 10. Because the removals were under physical control, the applicable limitation period was three months. Rule 9(2) could not be invoked, and the residuary Rule 10A was unavailable where Rule 10 governed the field. The appeals succeeded on limitation, and the confirmed demands were quashed with consequential refund relief. en-us Fri, 22 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:47:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166657 Duty demands were held time-barred where clearances were made under physical control after submission and certification of AR 1 forms, and the stocks had been disclosed and verified. In the absence of wilful suppression, wrongful declaration, or surreptitious removal, the matter fell only within error or mis-construction, attracting Rule 10. Because the removals were under physical control, the applicable limitation period was three months. Rule 9(2) could not be invoked, and the residuary Rule 10A was unavailable where Rule 10 governed the field. The appeals succeeded on limitation, and the confirmed demands were quashed with consequential refund relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166657