https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166683 A central excise demand was upheld where the show cause notice, though it did not cite the exact rule or quantify the amount, made the basis of liability clear and was issued by a competent authority; objections based on limitation, Article 265, and exemption linked to countervailing duty on imported raw materials were rejected. However, duty could not be recovered for a period not covered by the notice, so the demand for 1-10-1972 to 30-3-1973 was set aside while the demand for the notified period was sustained. The governing principle is that a notice is not invalid merely for lack of exact particulars if the charge is otherwise clear, but recovery cannot extend beyond the notice period. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:02:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166683 A central excise demand was upheld where the show cause notice, though it did not cite the exact rule or quantify the amount, made the basis of liability clear and was issued by a competent authority; objections based on limitation, Article 265, and exemption linked to countervailing duty on imported raw materials were rejected. However, duty could not be recovered for a period not covered by the notice, so the demand for 1-10-1972 to 30-3-1973 was set aside while the demand for the notified period was sustained. The governing principle is that a notice is not invalid merely for lack of exact particulars if the charge is otherwise clear, but recovery cannot extend beyond the notice period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166683