https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117744 A show cause notice issued by the Superintendent did not vitiate the excise demand because Rule 9(2) required confirmation by the proper authority on adjudication, and the confirmed demand was made by the competent officer. The jurisdictional objection was rejected. The duty demand and penalty were also sustained on the factual finding of repeated, unexplained shortages of finished excisable goods during stock verification, as the explanation of approximate weighing and scrap storage was found unacceptable. The appeal therefore failed on both the authority challenge and the shortage-based demand. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:56:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117744 A show cause notice issued by the Superintendent did not vitiate the excise demand because Rule 9(2) required confirmation by the proper authority on adjudication, and the confirmed demand was made by the competent officer. The jurisdictional objection was rejected. The duty demand and penalty were also sustained on the factual finding of repeated, unexplained shortages of finished excisable goods during stock verification, as the explanation of approximate weighing and scrap storage was found unacceptable. The appeal therefore failed on both the authority challenge and the shortage-based demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117744