https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40569 Section 40(2) was confined to suits, prosecutions, and other court proceedings, so it did not bar departmental quasi-judicial adjudication under the excise rules. A short-levy arising from clearances made contrary to the approved price list and applicable notifications was not treated as a mere clerical or assessment error within Rule 10; recovery lay under Rule 10A instead. The receiving unit was treated as a composite mill because the manufacturer's relevant activities were carried on through multiple units as a whole. Alleged arithmetical mistakes in duty computation were left for departmental verification and did not displace the demand in substance. en-us Thu, 26 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 May 2010 16:01:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40569 Section 40(2) was confined to suits, prosecutions, and other court proceedings, so it did not bar departmental quasi-judicial adjudication under the excise rules. A short-levy arising from clearances made contrary to the approved price list and applicable notifications was not treated as a mere clerical or assessment error within Rule 10; recovery lay under Rule 10A instead. The receiving unit was treated as a composite mill because the manufacturer's relevant activities were carried on through multiple units as a whole. Alleged arithmetical mistakes in duty computation were left for departmental verification and did not displace the demand in substance. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40569