https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167182 A demand for differential excise duty cannot be sustained for an earlier period unless the assessee receives prior notice and a real opportunity to respond under the short-levy procedure. The Court treated compliance with natural justice as substantive and held that defective notice and ineffective hearing could not cure the prejudice. It also recognised that approved classification may be revisited on fresh material, including chemical test reports, but retrospective recovery is not justified on the admitted facts without lawful procedure and supporting material. Prospective action after due hearing remained open. en-us Sat, 24 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:00:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167182 A demand for differential excise duty cannot be sustained for an earlier period unless the assessee receives prior notice and a real opportunity to respond under the short-levy procedure. The Court treated compliance with natural justice as substantive and held that defective notice and ineffective hearing could not cure the prejudice. It also recognised that approved classification may be revisited on fresh material, including chemical test reports, but retrospective recovery is not justified on the admitted facts without lawful procedure and supporting material. Prospective action after due hearing remained open. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 24 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167182