https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90380 The commentary addresses two excise-law points: jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the show cause notice, and proof of clandestine manufacture and removal. It states that the Principal Collector was competent to issue the notice during the relevant period and that the adjudicating Collector was validly appointed, so the jurisdictional objection failed. It also notes that private registers, corroborating statements, electricity consumption data, and evidence of unaccounted raw material purchases were treated as supporting each other, leading to the conclusion that suppressed production and removal were established. On that basis, the demand and penalties were sustained. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:05:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90380 The commentary addresses two excise-law points: jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the show cause notice, and proof of clandestine manufacture and removal. It states that the Principal Collector was competent to issue the notice during the relevant period and that the adjudicating Collector was validly appointed, so the jurisdictional objection failed. It also notes that private registers, corroborating statements, electricity consumption data, and evidence of unaccounted raw material purchases were treated as supporting each other, leading to the conclusion that suppressed production and removal were established. On that basis, the demand and penalties were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90380