https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166658 Rule 173RG was treated as a self-contained levy for stock held on the relevant date under the simplified excise procedure, so the duty liability arose directly under that rule and was not displaced by Rules 9, 9A, 10 or 10A. On that basis, limitation arguments tied to Rule 10 and the need for a formal show cause notice were rejected. Notification No. 71/78-C.E. was also held not to override the specific duty liability imposed by Rule 173RG, because a general exemption under Rule 8 could not defeat the special obligation created for pre-simplified-procedure stock. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:53:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166658 Rule 173RG was treated as a self-contained levy for stock held on the relevant date under the simplified excise procedure, so the duty liability arose directly under that rule and was not displaced by Rules 9, 9A, 10 or 10A. On that basis, limitation arguments tied to Rule 10 and the need for a formal show cause notice were rejected. Notification No. 71/78-C.E. was also held not to override the specific duty liability imposed by Rule 173RG, because a general exemption under Rule 8 could not defeat the special obligation created for pre-simplified-procedure stock. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166658