https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167497 A demand raised under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as distinct from a case of non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Because the goods had been cleared under Rule 192 at a concessional rate and the recovery arose from alleged non-accountal or improper use under Rule 196, the rule was held not to carry any prescribed time-limit. The third proviso to Section 36(2) was also found inapplicable, as the matter did not concern duty not levied or short-levied at the original assessment stage. The limitation objection was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:01:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167497 A demand raised under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as distinct from a case of non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Because the goods had been cleared under Rule 192 at a concessional rate and the recovery arose from alleged non-accountal or improper use under Rule 196, the rule was held not to carry any prescribed time-limit. The third proviso to Section 36(2) was also found inapplicable, as the matter did not concern duty not levied or short-levied at the original assessment stage. The limitation objection was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167497