https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80900 Clearances reflected in classification lists, gate passes, RT-12 returns and departmental assessments could not be treated as clandestine removals, so a demand under Rule 9(2) failed on those facts. The exemption under Notification No. 119/66 was denied because the prescribed raw-material conditions were not satisfactorily proved, and the burden of establishing eligibility for exemption was not discharged. Rule 10 was held to cover even nil assessments, treating duty that ought to have been paid as short-levied, so the demand was sustainable under that rule and not Rule 10A. A notice citing Rule 9(2) was not invalid where the demand could otherwise be sustained within Rule 10, subject to the three-month limitation. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:49:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80900 Clearances reflected in classification lists, gate passes, RT-12 returns and departmental assessments could not be treated as clandestine removals, so a demand under Rule 9(2) failed on those facts. The exemption under Notification No. 119/66 was denied because the prescribed raw-material conditions were not satisfactorily proved, and the burden of establishing eligibility for exemption was not discharged. Rule 10 was held to cover even nil assessments, treating duty that ought to have been paid as short-levied, so the demand was sustainable under that rule and not Rule 10A. A notice citing Rule 9(2) was not invalid where the demand could otherwise be sustained within Rule 10, subject to the three-month limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80900