Excise demand under Rule 9(2) failed where no prior levy existed and Rule 10A lacked support.

Excise demands issued under Rule 10A could not be salvaged by resorting to Rule 9(2) because that provision applies only where an anterior levy already exists and the payment mechanism under Rule 9(1) is in place. It does not authorise a first-time levy. As the matter was not one of clandestine removal after an existing levy, and no other statutory basis was invoked, the demands were held unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise demands could be sustained under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules after Rule 10A was found unsustainable.

Analysis: The demands were originally issued under Rule 10A, and that provision was treated as lacking statutory support. The attempt to sustain the same demands under Rule 9(2) failed because that rule applies only where there has already been an anterior levy and the prescribed mode of payment under Rule 9(1) exists. It does not authorise a first-time levy. The case was not one of clandestine removal after an existing levy, and the department did not rely on any other statutory provision.

Conclusion: The demands could not be sustained under Rule 9(2) and were liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.

---