https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42784 Duty demand on goods manufactured from purchased rails was treated as one for excisable goods removed without clearance documents or proof of exempt manufacture, so the residuary recovery provision in Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied rather than Rule 10. As a result, the demand was not subject to the three-month limitation applicable to short-levy proceedings under Rule 10. The challenge to Rule 10-A on ultra vires grounds was rejected because its validity had been upheld by the Supreme Court under the rule-making power in Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The demand notice was therefore valid in law. en-us Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42784 Duty demand on goods manufactured from purchased rails was treated as one for excisable goods removed without clearance documents or proof of exempt manufacture, so the residuary recovery provision in Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied rather than Rule 10. As a result, the demand was not subject to the three-month limitation applicable to short-levy proceedings under Rule 10. The challenge to Rule 10-A on ultra vires grounds was rejected because its validity had been upheld by the Supreme Court under the rule-making power in Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The demand notice was therefore valid in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42784