https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40435 Demand notices for excise duty were time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because that rule was the specific recovery provision for short-levied duty and its reference to duty "paid" was construed to mean duty that ought to have been paid. This construction applied even where the goods had been assessed to nil duty, so nil assessment did not take the matter outside Rule 10. Rule 10-A was inapplicable because the case fell within the specific short-levy provision, and Rule 9(2) was inapplicable because the removals were not clandestine but had been made with excise authorities' permission and assessment. The excise demands were therefore invalid. en-us Fri, 22 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40435 Demand notices for excise duty were time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because that rule was the specific recovery provision for short-levied duty and its reference to duty "paid" was construed to mean duty that ought to have been paid. This construction applied even where the goods had been assessed to nil duty, so nil assessment did not take the matter outside Rule 10. Rule 10-A was inapplicable because the case fell within the specific short-levy provision, and Rule 9(2) was inapplicable because the removals were not clandestine but had been made with excise authorities' permission and assessment. The excise demands were therefore invalid. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40435