https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41850 The court interpreted the Explanation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, regarding the limitation period for issuing a notice. It found that the notice issued beyond the limitation period was invalid as the court order for stay did not apply to the notice for levy of duty. The judgment emphasized the distinction between levy and collection of excise duty, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in issuing demand notices under the Act. The court set aside the demand, ordering a refund of any tax paid by the appellant. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41850 The court interpreted the Explanation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, regarding the limitation period for issuing a notice. It found that the notice issued beyond the limitation period was invalid as the court order for stay did not apply to the notice for levy of duty. The judgment emphasized the distinction between levy and collection of excise duty, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in issuing demand notices under the Act. The court set aside the demand, ordering a refund of any tax paid by the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41850