https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277963 Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was read as conferring power not only to collect excise duty but also to prescribe the manner of levy, so Rule 10A fell within the rule-making ambit as a residuary recovery provision. The rule was therefore treated as valid rather than ultra vires. On the facts, goods had lost exemption during the relevant period and duty payable on clearances was not remitted; Rule 10A could validly be invoked to recover the unpaid duty. The demand and recovery were upheld, and the challenge to the excise demand failed. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jan 2019 13:10:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277963 Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was read as conferring power not only to collect excise duty but also to prescribe the manner of levy, so Rule 10A fell within the rule-making ambit as a residuary recovery provision. The rule was therefore treated as valid rather than ultra vires. On the facts, goods had lost exemption during the relevant period and duty payable on clearances was not remitted; Rule 10A could validly be invoked to recover the unpaid duty. The demand and recovery were upheld, and the challenge to the excise demand failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277963