https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167609 Excise demands issued under Rule 10A could not be salvaged by resorting to Rule 9(2) because that provision applies only where an anterior levy already exists and the payment mechanism under Rule 9(1) is in place. It does not authorise a first-time levy. As the matter was not one of clandestine removal after an existing levy, and no other statutory basis was invoked, the demands were held unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 22 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:08:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167609 Excise demands issued under Rule 10A could not be salvaged by resorting to Rule 9(2) because that provision applies only where an anterior levy already exists and the payment mechanism under Rule 9(1) is in place. It does not authorise a first-time levy. As the matter was not one of clandestine removal after an existing levy, and no other statutory basis was invoked, the demands were held unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Mar 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167609