https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73371 In alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods, Rule 9(2) was read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the Department could invoke the proviso and use the extended period of limitation where suppression was alleged. The contention that Section 11A operated only prospectively and therefore could not support the notice was rejected as unsustainable. The challenge to the show cause notice on want of jurisdiction consequently failed, and the extended limitation period was held applicable. en-us Fri, 17 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 15:08:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73371 In alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods, Rule 9(2) was read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the Department could invoke the proviso and use the extended period of limitation where suppression was alleged. The contention that Section 11A operated only prospectively and therefore could not support the notice was rejected as unsustainable. The challenge to the show cause notice on want of jurisdiction consequently failed, and the extended limitation period was held applicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73371