https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43873 Short-levy or non-levy of central excise duty under Rule 10 had to be actioned within the limitation period then in force, counted from the date duty ought to have been paid on removal of the goods. Because the goods were cleared under an approved classification list, the matter did not fall within Rule 9(2), and the notice dated 7-4-1975 was beyond the three-month limit for the entire demand period. A later amendment extending limitation could not operate retrospectively to validate an already time-barred notice, so the demand was barred by limitation and the recovery action invalid. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43873 Short-levy or non-levy of central excise duty under Rule 10 had to be actioned within the limitation period then in force, counted from the date duty ought to have been paid on removal of the goods. Because the goods were cleared under an approved classification list, the matter did not fall within Rule 9(2), and the notice dated 7-4-1975 was beyond the three-month limit for the entire demand period. A later amendment extending limitation could not operate retrospectively to validate an already time-barred notice, so the demand was barred by limitation and the recovery action invalid. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43873