https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74404 Duty under Rule 9A(5) had to be recovered at the rate applicable on each date of clearance unless the adjudicating authority specifically directed recovery at a higher rate; in the absence of such a notice and order, applying 8% for the entire period was unauthorized. Removal of excisable goods without payment of duty justified penalty, and the absence of suppression or misstatement did not negate the breach. The assessee therefore succeeded on the duty-rate question, but the penalty was sustained, leaving the appeal successful only in part. en-us Fri, 01 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:38:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74404 Duty under Rule 9A(5) had to be recovered at the rate applicable on each date of clearance unless the adjudicating authority specifically directed recovery at a higher rate; in the absence of such a notice and order, applying 8% for the entire period was unauthorized. Removal of excisable goods without payment of duty justified penalty, and the absence of suppression or misstatement did not negate the breach. The assessee therefore succeeded on the duty-rate question, but the penalty was sustained, leaving the appeal successful only in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74404