https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98754 Differential central excise duty could not be sustained under Rule 9(2) where clearances were openly made, duty was paid on the then-prevailing price, and no clandestine removal or comparable evasionary conduct was shown. The later receipt of subsidy after refixation of levy sugar price did not convert the original clearances into a Rule 9(2) case, so the demand failed. The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) also could not be invoked because the Revenue did not establish suppression, fraud or collusion with deliberate intent to evade duty, and the relevant date could not be redefined to cure that defect. The duty demand and connected penalties were set aside. en-us Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:47:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98754 Differential central excise duty could not be sustained under Rule 9(2) where clearances were openly made, duty was paid on the then-prevailing price, and no clandestine removal or comparable evasionary conduct was shown. The later receipt of subsidy after refixation of levy sugar price did not convert the original clearances into a Rule 9(2) case, so the demand failed. The extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) also could not be invoked because the Revenue did not establish suppression, fraud or collusion with deliberate intent to evade duty, and the relevant date could not be redefined to cure that defect. The duty demand and connected penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 14 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98754