https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44368 In a revision under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a notice proposing recovery of short-levied duty was held to fall under the special limitation in the third proviso, not the general limitation in the second proviso. Reading the provision with the earlier Rule 10 and Section 11A, the Court treated cases of non-levy, short-levy, or erroneous refund as governed by the specific six-month period. Because the proposed revisional action would result in recovery of duty shortfall, the notice had to satisfy that shorter limitation and was time-barred. en-us Thu, 03 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44368 In a revision under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a notice proposing recovery of short-levied duty was held to fall under the special limitation in the third proviso, not the general limitation in the second proviso. Reading the provision with the earlier Rule 10 and Section 11A, the Court treated cases of non-levy, short-levy, or erroneous refund as governed by the specific six-month period. Because the proposed revisional action would result in recovery of duty shortfall, the notice had to satisfy that shorter limitation and was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44368