https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101414 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules applies only to clandestine removals made without payment of duty; it could not sustain a demand where duty had been paid on clearances beyond the exemption limit and clandestine non-duty-paid removal was not established. The extended limitation period for alleged suppression required fresh examination because the Department had previously pursued the same brand-name allegation and departmental knowledge, bona fide belief, brand ownership, and distinct trade mark usage remained unresolved. The adjudication was set aside and remitted for de novo consideration of limitation, suppression, and exemption eligibility, with an opportunity to produce evidence. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:00:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101414 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules applies only to clandestine removals made without payment of duty; it could not sustain a demand where duty had been paid on clearances beyond the exemption limit and clandestine non-duty-paid removal was not established. The extended limitation period for alleged suppression required fresh examination because the Department had previously pursued the same brand-name allegation and departmental knowledge, bona fide belief, brand ownership, and distinct trade mark usage remained unresolved. The adjudication was set aside and remitted for de novo consideration of limitation, suppression, and exemption eligibility, with an opportunity to produce evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101414