https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42541 Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules applied only to short levy caused by inadvertence, error, collusion, misstatement or similar lapse; because the differential duty arose from the pendency and later resolution of the excise dispute, the limitation defence under that rule was not available. Payment made pursuant to a trade notice that extended a concession and fixed a time for availing it was not shown to have been extracted by coercive threat, so it was not involuntary under Section 72 of the Contract Act. On that basis, the refund claim failed. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:04:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42541 Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules applied only to short levy caused by inadvertence, error, collusion, misstatement or similar lapse; because the differential duty arose from the pendency and later resolution of the excise dispute, the limitation defence under that rule was not available. Payment made pursuant to a trade notice that extended a concession and fixed a time for availing it was not shown to have been extracted by coercive threat, so it was not involuntary under Section 72 of the Contract Act. On that basis, the refund claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42541