https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90896 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applies only to clandestine removal of excisable goods without assessment, so a demand and penalty based on post-clearance price refixation could not be sustained where the goods were cleared with the department's knowledge. Section 11A did not cure that defect because the notice was essentially founded on Rule 9(2). Section 11D could not be relied on either, as it was not invoked in the show-cause notice and could not be introduced to support the demand at the stay stage. The commentary concludes that these points gave the assessee a strong prima facie case against recovery. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90896 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applies only to clandestine removal of excisable goods without assessment, so a demand and penalty based on post-clearance price refixation could not be sustained where the goods were cleared with the department's knowledge. Section 11A did not cure that defect because the notice was essentially founded on Rule 9(2). Section 11D could not be relied on either, as it was not invoked in the show-cause notice and could not be introduced to support the demand at the stay stage. The commentary concludes that these points gave the assessee a strong prima facie case against recovery. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90896