https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165891 Duty demand could not be sustained under rule 10, rule 9(2) or section 11A for the relevant period because clearances were made on filed price lists and the record did not show clandestine removal or suppression of facts; section 11A was also unavailable for that period. Penalty under rule 173Q was likewise not attracted, as the mere erroneous approval of a price list did not establish penal liability without proof of an attempt to clear goods without payment of duty. The legal principle stated is that recovery and penalty provisions require their statutory basis and supporting facts, and cannot be invoked on the facts described where clandestine conduct is not established. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:35:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165891 Duty demand could not be sustained under rule 10, rule 9(2) or section 11A for the relevant period because clearances were made on filed price lists and the record did not show clandestine removal or suppression of facts; section 11A was also unavailable for that period. Penalty under rule 173Q was likewise not attracted, as the mere erroneous approval of a price list did not establish penal liability without proof of an attempt to clear goods without payment of duty. The legal principle stated is that recovery and penalty provisions require their statutory basis and supporting facts, and cannot be invoked on the facts described where clandestine conduct is not established. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Jul 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165891