https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166597 Differential excise duty demands were unsustainable because Rule 173J required prior notice to the assessee before any such demand was raised, and a direct demand without notice did not comply with the mandatory procedure. The enhanced duty rate under Rule 9A also could not apply on the basis of the railway receipt date, because the goods had already been loaded, cleared, and certified as removed in the presence of excise authorities; the deeming fiction did not displace proved actual removal. The demand was therefore set aside on both procedural and substantive grounds in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Oct 2014 10:41:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166597 Differential excise duty demands were unsustainable because Rule 173J required prior notice to the assessee before any such demand was raised, and a direct demand without notice did not comply with the mandatory procedure. The enhanced duty rate under Rule 9A also could not apply on the basis of the railway receipt date, because the goods had already been loaded, cleared, and certified as removed in the presence of excise authorities; the deeming fiction did not displace proved actual removal. The demand was therefore set aside on both procedural and substantive grounds in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166597