https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40551 Recovery of an erroneous refund was held to be valid when the demand-cum-show cause notice was issued within one year of the refund, and a mistaken reference to Rule 10A did not invalidate the notice because the substance of the demand was clear and timely under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The commentary also states that Notification No. 43/75 did not extend exemption to aluminium rods manufactured from aluminium scrap, so the finished rods were not eligible for exemption. On both limitation and merits, the recovery demand was upheld. en-us Sun, 28 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 May 2010 14:00:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40551 Recovery of an erroneous refund was held to be valid when the demand-cum-show cause notice was issued within one year of the refund, and a mistaken reference to Rule 10A did not invalidate the notice because the substance of the demand was clear and timely under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The commentary also states that Notification No. 43/75 did not extend exemption to aluminium rods manufactured from aluminium scrap, so the finished rods were not eligible for exemption. On both limitation and merits, the recovery demand was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 28 Oct 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40551