https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313594 A demand founded on Rule 9(2) could not be sustained where no infraction of Rule 9(1) had been found, and a notice relying on that basis could not support recovery for the disputed period; that demand was therefore not maintainable. By contrast, the earlier Section 11A notices remained enforceable only within the ordinary six-month limitation period preceding each notice, and not beyond it. The transfer and joint adjudication of the proceedings before the Collector involved no procedural irregularity, as the matters could validly continue from the stage reached before the amending Act. The rectification accordingly excluded the unsupported demand while preserving the earlier notices to the limited extent permitted by limitation. en-us Tue, 31 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:26:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313594 A demand founded on Rule 9(2) could not be sustained where no infraction of Rule 9(1) had been found, and a notice relying on that basis could not support recovery for the disputed period; that demand was therefore not maintainable. By contrast, the earlier Section 11A notices remained enforceable only within the ordinary six-month limitation period preceding each notice, and not beyond it. The transfer and joint adjudication of the proceedings before the Collector involved no procedural irregularity, as the matters could validly continue from the stage reached before the amending Act. The rectification accordingly excluded the unsupported demand while preserving the earlier notices to the limited extent permitted by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313594