https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91022 A show cause notice for alleged clandestine removal was treated as a proviso to Section 11A demand, not a routine six-month action under Rule 9(2), because the notice expressly invoked Section 11A and alleged suppression or evasion. The later corrigendum also indicated that adjudication was intended before the Additional Commissioner, confirming that the Superintendent was not the competent authority to invoke the proviso. On that basis, the notice was invalid, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:41:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91022 A show cause notice for alleged clandestine removal was treated as a proviso to Section 11A demand, not a routine six-month action under Rule 9(2), because the notice expressly invoked Section 11A and alleged suppression or evasion. The later corrigendum also indicated that adjudication was intended before the Additional Commissioner, confirming that the Superintendent was not the competent authority to invoke the proviso. On that basis, the notice was invalid, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91022