https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40621 Short-levy arising from inadvertence or misconstruction of the excise law fell within Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so the department had to act within that rule's limitation period; the residuary Rule 10A could not be used to bypass that limit, and the demand was time-barred. Rule 56A(3)(v) did not apply because the case did not involve unaccounted or diverted duty-paid components, and the second proviso to Rule 56A(2) also did not apply because there was no subsequent variation in duty on the component parts. The excise demand was therefore unsustainable under the provisions invoked. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 May 2010 10:47:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40621 Short-levy arising from inadvertence or misconstruction of the excise law fell within Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so the department had to act within that rule's limitation period; the residuary Rule 10A could not be used to bypass that limit, and the demand was time-barred. Rule 56A(3)(v) did not apply because the case did not involve unaccounted or diverted duty-paid components, and the second proviso to Rule 56A(2) also did not apply because there was no subsequent variation in duty on the component parts. The excise demand was therefore unsustainable under the provisions invoked. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40621