https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99814 A demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a proven contravention of Rule 9(1); in the absence of findings of clandestine removal or any other Rule 9(1) breach, the invocation was unsustainable. For goods received under Chapter X, Rule 196 permitted recovery where the goods were not accounted for to the satisfaction of the proper officer, but it did not carry the limitation period in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand was therefore set aside on both grounds. en-us Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:11:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99814 A demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required a proven contravention of Rule 9(1); in the absence of findings of clandestine removal or any other Rule 9(1) breach, the invocation was unsustainable. For goods received under Chapter X, Rule 196 permitted recovery where the goods were not accounted for to the satisfaction of the proper officer, but it did not carry the limitation period in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The demand was therefore set aside on both grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99814