https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41641 Limitation under the Central Excise Rules barred recovery for removals made before 8 June 1970, because the one-year period under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J had expired when notice was served on 8 June 1971. In construing excise exemption notifications, the phrase "has been paid" was held not to require proof of actual payment by the supplier; it was enough that the duty was payable on the raw material. The authorities also had to first determine whether the material was Item 26AA goods or scrap, because that factual classification governed the applicable exemption notification. The barred demand was quashed and the remaining issues were remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:56:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41641 Limitation under the Central Excise Rules barred recovery for removals made before 8 June 1970, because the one-year period under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J had expired when notice was served on 8 June 1971. In construing excise exemption notifications, the phrase "has been paid" was held not to require proof of actual payment by the supplier; it was enough that the duty was payable on the raw material. The authorities also had to first determine whether the material was Item 26AA goods or scrap, because that factual classification governed the applicable exemption notification. The barred demand was quashed and the remaining issues were remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41641