https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45575 A civil suit remains maintainable where an excise demand is challenged as ultra vires the governing rules, because statutory remedies and bars do not protect acts done without jurisdiction. Rule 10 governed recovery of short-levied duty within a three-month period, while Rule 10A operated only residually where no specific rule applied. A demand issued outside Rule 10 could not be validated by invoking Rule 10A. Sections 35, 36 and 40 did not bar the suit, since they do not shield unauthorised or illegal demands made beyond the officer's powers. The civil court therefore had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the excise notices. en-us Wed, 11 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:47:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45575 A civil suit remains maintainable where an excise demand is challenged as ultra vires the governing rules, because statutory remedies and bars do not protect acts done without jurisdiction. Rule 10 governed recovery of short-levied duty within a three-month period, while Rule 10A operated only residually where no specific rule applied. A demand issued outside Rule 10 could not be validated by invoking Rule 10A. Sections 35, 36 and 40 did not bar the suit, since they do not shield unauthorised or illegal demands made beyond the officer's powers. The civil court therefore had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the excise notices. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45575