https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52163 Section 11D creates a distinct mechanism for recovery of sums collected as excise duty, and the notice issued under that provision was not subject to Section 11A limitation because no limitation period was prescribed for Section 11D proceedings. A fresh notice after withdrawal of the first was valid, since the earlier notice only initiated the liability-determination process and did not itself create liability. Amounts once collected as duty remained liable under Section 11D even if later refunded to buyers. The post-amendment version of Section 11D applied, so the earlier High Court ruling on the pre-amendment position was inapplicable. The demand was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52163 Section 11D creates a distinct mechanism for recovery of sums collected as excise duty, and the notice issued under that provision was not subject to Section 11A limitation because no limitation period was prescribed for Section 11D proceedings. A fresh notice after withdrawal of the first was valid, since the earlier notice only initiated the liability-determination process and did not itself create liability. Amounts once collected as duty remained liable under Section 11D even if later refunded to buyers. The post-amendment version of Section 11D applied, so the earlier High Court ruling on the pre-amendment position was inapplicable. The demand was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52163