https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72304 Rule 9(2) authorised recovery of duty by written demand where excisable goods were removed without payment, and the Collector was a proper officer empowered to confirm that demand. The reference to Section 11A operated only for limitation, so the demand was not invalid for want of jurisdiction. The notice sufficiently disclosed the clearances and year-wise demand, which supported invocation of the extended limitation period. Non-disclosure of production to the Department amounted to suppression of facts within the proviso to Section 11A, making the longer period sustainable. On that basis, the demand for duty was held legally maintainable. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 13:17:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72304 Rule 9(2) authorised recovery of duty by written demand where excisable goods were removed without payment, and the Collector was a proper officer empowered to confirm that demand. The reference to Section 11A operated only for limitation, so the demand was not invalid for want of jurisdiction. The notice sufficiently disclosed the clearances and year-wise demand, which supported invocation of the extended limitation period. Non-disclosure of production to the Department amounted to suppression of facts within the proviso to Section 11A, making the longer period sustainable. On that basis, the demand for duty was held legally maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72304