https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46133 A challenge to an excise demand arising from illicit receipt of unmanufactured tobacco was rejected because the earlier liability order had not been challenged and statutory appellate and reference remedies were available, so interference under Article 226 was unwarranted. Duty was held payable under Rule 9A(1)(ii) read with Rule 40, and the later withdrawal of duty on unmanufactured tobacco did not retrospectively remove liability for the earlier contravention. The demand was also held not to be time-barred, as the show cause notice followed detection of the contravention and the proceedings fell within the extended limitation framework for evasion cases. The demand and penalty were upheld. en-us Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:16:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46133 A challenge to an excise demand arising from illicit receipt of unmanufactured tobacco was rejected because the earlier liability order had not been challenged and statutory appellate and reference remedies were available, so interference under Article 226 was unwarranted. Duty was held payable under Rule 9A(1)(ii) read with Rule 40, and the later withdrawal of duty on unmanufactured tobacco did not retrospectively remove liability for the earlier contravention. The demand was also held not to be time-barred, as the show cause notice followed detection of the contravention and the proceedings fell within the extended limitation framework for evasion cases. The demand and penalty were upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46133