https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40970 Where excise duty was allegedly short levied at the stage of clearance from a licensed godown, recovery had to proceed under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and within its three-month limitation period; Rule 10A could not be used as a residuary route to bypass that specific time limit. On that footing, notices issued after the prescribed period were barred. The processed dyes were also treated as covered by the exemption notification dated 23 November 1961 because they were made from basic dyes on which duty had already been paid, so the demand and the administrative order sustaining it were illegal and were set aside. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 May 2010 10:12:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40970 Where excise duty was allegedly short levied at the stage of clearance from a licensed godown, recovery had to proceed under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and within its three-month limitation period; Rule 10A could not be used as a residuary route to bypass that specific time limit. On that footing, notices issued after the prescribed period were barred. The processed dyes were also treated as covered by the exemption notification dated 23 November 1961 because they were made from basic dyes on which duty had already been paid, so the demand and the administrative order sustaining it were illegal and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40970