https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40467 A writ petition challenging an excise demand was held maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy because the challenge was treated as one involving enforcement of a right under Part III, so the preliminary objection failed. On the excise issue, the Court construed "mis-statement" in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 broadly to include a false statement and not merely an innocent or bona fide error. The alleged short levy therefore fell under Rule 10, not Rule 10A, and the demand was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. The impugned demand notice was not sustainable and the claim failed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 21 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 May 2010 13:59:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40467 A writ petition challenging an excise demand was held maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy because the challenge was treated as one involving enforcement of a right under Part III, so the preliminary objection failed. On the excise issue, the Court construed "mis-statement" in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 broadly to include a false statement and not merely an innocent or bona fide error. The alleged short levy therefore fell under Rule 10, not Rule 10A, and the demand was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. The impugned demand notice was not sustainable and the claim failed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40467