https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165601 An excise demand is not invalid merely because it was first issued under an incorrect rule if the goods were admittedly dutiable and duty was unpaid on removal, since the demand can be sustained under the correct provision. The absence of a separate adjudication under Rule 9(1) does not vitiate the demand where Rule 9(2) applies directly on the admitted facts. Procedural objections based on alleged lack of opportunity fail where the figures are taken from the assessee's own books and no prejudice is shown. A challenge to the Inspector's competence was also not accepted on these facts, leaving the demand and connected orders undisturbed. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:52:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165601 An excise demand is not invalid merely because it was first issued under an incorrect rule if the goods were admittedly dutiable and duty was unpaid on removal, since the demand can be sustained under the correct provision. The absence of a separate adjudication under Rule 9(1) does not vitiate the demand where Rule 9(2) applies directly on the admitted facts. Procedural objections based on alleged lack of opportunity fail where the figures are taken from the assessee's own books and no prejudice is shown. A challenge to the Inspector's competence was also not accepted on these facts, leaving the demand and connected orders undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165601