https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45818 Improper removal of excisable goods from a warehouse was treated as a distinct contravention governed by Rule 160 and the related recovery and penalty machinery in Rules 161 and 162, not as a case of short-levy recoverable under Rule 10. Because Rule 10 applies only to duty short-levied through inadvertence, error, collusion, misconstruction, or misstatement, its limitation period did not bar the demand. The limitation objection therefore failed, although recovery had still to proceed in accordance with Rule 161. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:32:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45818 Improper removal of excisable goods from a warehouse was treated as a distinct contravention governed by Rule 160 and the related recovery and penalty machinery in Rules 161 and 162, not as a case of short-levy recoverable under Rule 10. Because Rule 10 applies only to duty short-levied through inadvertence, error, collusion, misconstruction, or misstatement, its limitation period did not bar the demand. The limitation objection therefore failed, although recovery had still to proceed in accordance with Rule 161. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45818