https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199669 Demands under the earlier notices of 4.5.1981 and addenda of 5.5.1981 were treated as valid because they were issued within limitation, were not cancelled or superseded by the later notice, and were supported by retrospective validation under the Finance Act, 1982. The later notice of 5.6.1982 was held, by majority, not to be time-barred for the disputed period because the High Court stay was treated as excluding time under Section 11A(1), while no valid Rule 9B provisional assessment was proved. Payments made under the Supreme Court's interim order were allowed to be appropriated towards earlier lawful dues, but the Superintendent's finalisation of alleged provisional assessments was set aside for want of notice and hearing. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199669 Demands under the earlier notices of 4.5.1981 and addenda of 5.5.1981 were treated as valid because they were issued within limitation, were not cancelled or superseded by the later notice, and were supported by retrospective validation under the Finance Act, 1982. The later notice of 5.6.1982 was held, by majority, not to be time-barred for the disputed period because the High Court stay was treated as excluding time under Section 11A(1), while no valid Rule 9B provisional assessment was proved. Payments made under the Supreme Court's interim order were allowed to be appropriated towards earlier lawful dues, but the Superintendent's finalisation of alleged provisional assessments was set aside for want of notice and hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199669