Clandestine removal and undisclosed manufacture justified notice under Rule 9(2) after breach of Rule 9(1).

Clandestine removal of the article, based on the Tribunal's majority finding that its manufacture and use were never disclosed to the Excise authorities and that the classification disclosures omitted it, meant the factual basis for interference was not made out. The Court declined to reappreciate evidence and accepted that finding. On that footing, Rule 9(1) was breached and a notice under Rule 9(2) was validly issued, so the challenge to the notice failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was properly invoked where the Tribunal's majority found clandestine removal of the article and breach of Rule 9(1).

Analysis: The appeal turned on the Tribunal's majority finding that the manufacture and use of the article had not been disclosed to the Excise authorities, and that the relevant classification disclosures did not mention the article in question. On that factual basis, the Court declined to reappreciate the evidence and accepted the majority view that the article had been clandestinely removed. Once that finding stood, the statutory consequence followed that Rule 9(1) was breached and a notice under Rule 9(2) could validly be issued.

Conclusion: Rule 9(2) was rightly attracted and the challenge to the notice failed.

---