https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45712 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to the statutory limitation period under section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The court found the notice demanding duty and penalty to be illegal due to being issued well beyond the prescribed six-month period, as per a Supreme Court judgment. The court rejected arguments that excise duty levy did not constitute "legal proceedings," aligning with the interpretation that such actions fall within the limitation period. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order and imposing costs on the respondent, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions in tax evasion cases. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:35:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45712 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to the statutory limitation period under section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The court found the notice demanding duty and penalty to be illegal due to being issued well beyond the prescribed six-month period, as per a Supreme Court judgment. The court rejected arguments that excise duty levy did not constitute "legal proceedings," aligning with the interpretation that such actions fall within the limitation period. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order and imposing costs on the respondent, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions in tax evasion cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45712