https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289245 Statutory bars under Sections 40 and 35(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act did not protect an unauthorised demand raised outside the Act and Rules. Because the impugned recovery was not an order made in conformity with the governing procedure, civil suit scrutiny remained available. For short levy caused by officer error or misconstruction, Rule 10 provided the specific recovery route and required action within three months from the relevant payment or adjustment date. Rule 10A could not be used where the Rules already made express provision. The cancellation of the reassessment and the enhanced demand were therefore illegal and unenforceable. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:31:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289245 Statutory bars under Sections 40 and 35(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act did not protect an unauthorised demand raised outside the Act and Rules. Because the impugned recovery was not an order made in conformity with the governing procedure, civil suit scrutiny remained available. For short levy caused by officer error or misconstruction, Rule 10 provided the specific recovery route and required action within three months from the relevant payment or adjustment date. Rule 10A could not be used where the Rules already made express provision. The cancellation of the reassessment and the enhanced demand were therefore illegal and unenforceable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jul 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289245