https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44943 Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 did not govern the demand because the duty on rectified spirit was exigible under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1950, not under the scheme invoked by the appellants; the limitation plea therefore failed and the demand was not time-barred. The challenge to the revised demand also failed because the earlier proceedings accepted prospective application of the circular, and the impugned notice was treated on the record as a revised demand that was not disputed in the rejoinder. The duty demand survived both objections and the appeal was dismissed without costs. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44943 Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 did not govern the demand because the duty on rectified spirit was exigible under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1950, not under the scheme invoked by the appellants; the limitation plea therefore failed and the demand was not time-barred. The challenge to the revised demand also failed because the earlier proceedings accepted prospective application of the circular, and the impugned notice was treated on the record as a revised demand that was not disputed in the rejoinder. The duty demand survived both objections and the appeal was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44943