https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54519 A second show cause notice could not validly confirm duty for the same period where an earlier notice under Rule 96ZP(1) had already been issued and remained unadjudicated. The proper course was to decide the first notice before proceeding further, and the later demand was also vulnerable because it was time-barred. The revenue's reliance on a manufacturer not opting twice in one financial year was held inapplicable on these facts. The second demand and resulting order were therefore unsustainable and were set aside. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:07:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54519 A second show cause notice could not validly confirm duty for the same period where an earlier notice under Rule 96ZP(1) had already been issued and remained unadjudicated. The proper course was to decide the first notice before proceeding further, and the later demand was also vulnerable because it was time-barred. The revenue's reliance on a manufacturer not opting twice in one financial year was held inapplicable on these facts. The second demand and resulting order were therefore unsustainable and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54519