https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120025 Duty recovery under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be examined on the basis of non-removal in accordance with the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred by shifting to Rule 49 and treating theft as an unavoidable accident, even though no remission application had been made. That approach did not address the actual dispute arising from the show cause notice and adjudication order. The appellate order was therefore unsustainable for deciding on an irrelevant issue, and the matter required reconsideration on the correct Rule 9(2) question. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:16:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120025 Duty recovery under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be examined on the basis of non-removal in accordance with the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred by shifting to Rule 49 and treating theft as an unavoidable accident, even though no remission application had been made. That approach did not address the actual dispute arising from the show cause notice and adjudication order. The appellate order was therefore unsustainable for deciding on an irrelevant issue, and the matter required reconsideration on the correct Rule 9(2) question. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120025