https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48666 The Tribunal's Larger Bench procedure was held competent where conflicting Bench views required uniform resolution, and the Tribunal was not bound across India by the view of any single High Court. Proceedings validly commenced under rule 10 or rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules were held to survive substitution or omission, so a pending show cause notice could continue under the substituted framework. On limitation, the period in force on the date of issuance of the show cause notice governed the demand, not the period existing when the short levy occurred, and the revenue's claim to breathing time was rejected. en-us Thu, 07 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2023 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48666 The Tribunal's Larger Bench procedure was held competent where conflicting Bench views required uniform resolution, and the Tribunal was not bound across India by the view of any single High Court. Proceedings validly commenced under rule 10 or rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules were held to survive substitution or omission, so a pending show cause notice could continue under the substituted framework. On limitation, the period in force on the date of issuance of the show cause notice governed the demand, not the period existing when the short levy occurred, and the revenue's claim to breathing time was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48666