https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72266 Clandestine removal of excisable goods was found on the basis of seized records, purchaser enquiries and linked transactions carried in fictitious names; the demand of duty and penalty was upheld because the alleged separate firms lacked independent identity and the defence of outside purchases and returned goods was not substantiated. No denial of natural justice was established, as the appellants had repeated opportunities to inspect the seized records and could not show prejudice from any alleged restriction. The demand was also held not time-barred, since it arose under the earlier Rule 9(2) framework and the later limitation amendment did not govern the period in question. en-us Thu, 31 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 May 2011 11:36:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72266 Clandestine removal of excisable goods was found on the basis of seized records, purchaser enquiries and linked transactions carried in fictitious names; the demand of duty and penalty was upheld because the alleged separate firms lacked independent identity and the defence of outside purchases and returned goods was not substantiated. No denial of natural justice was established, as the appellants had repeated opportunities to inspect the seized records and could not show prejudice from any alleged restriction. The demand was also held not time-barred, since it arose under the earlier Rule 9(2) framework and the later limitation amendment did not govern the period in question. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72266