https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41161 A withdrawn excise demand could not be revived by a successor Assistant Collector's unilateral cancellation of the earlier withdrawal order; the proper course was statutory review, so the later demand proceedings were invalid. A short-levy dispute arising from a wrong declaration of weight fell under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, not Rule 10A, and demands beyond the prescribed limitation were time-barred. The alleged short levy also failed on evidence because the Department did not produce cogent proof to displace the trade practice that the declared nominal weight included wrapper paper. On these grounds, the revision applications succeeded. en-us Sat, 15 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 May 2010 13:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41161 A withdrawn excise demand could not be revived by a successor Assistant Collector's unilateral cancellation of the earlier withdrawal order; the proper course was statutory review, so the later demand proceedings were invalid. A short-levy dispute arising from a wrong declaration of weight fell under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, not Rule 10A, and demands beyond the prescribed limitation were time-barred. The alleged short levy also failed on evidence because the Department did not produce cogent proof to displace the trade practice that the declared nominal weight included wrapper paper. On these grounds, the revision applications succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 15 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41161