https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42485 Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 was held to be intra vires the parent Act because it functioned as a residuary mechanism for recovery of duty short-levied or unpaid and did not impose any new excise charge. The Court also held that the absence of an express limitation period did not make the rule arbitrary or violative of Article 14, since recovery must still be pursued within a reasonable period and delay remains a case-specific issue. The demand notices issued under Rule 12 were therefore upheld and the High Court's order quashing them was set aside. en-us Thu, 20 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Oct 2025 23:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42485 Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 was held to be intra vires the parent Act because it functioned as a residuary mechanism for recovery of duty short-levied or unpaid and did not impose any new excise charge. The Court also held that the absence of an express limitation period did not make the rule arbitrary or violative of Article 14, since recovery must still be pursued within a reasonable period and delay remains a case-specific issue. The demand notices issued under Rule 12 were therefore upheld and the High Court's order quashing them was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42485