https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40608 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be invoked to recover differential excise duty where removals were not clandestine and had taken place with departmental knowledge after filing the required forms. The show cause notice disclosed a jurisdictional defect on its face because the provision contemplated duty, penalty and confiscation for contravention of Rule 9(1), not recovery of differential duty in these facts. A writ of prohibition was therefore maintainable and was issued, rendering the departmental notice unsustainable. en-us Tue, 06 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 May 2010 18:24:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40608 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be invoked to recover differential excise duty where removals were not clandestine and had taken place with departmental knowledge after filing the required forms. The show cause notice disclosed a jurisdictional defect on its face because the provision contemplated duty, penalty and confiscation for contravention of Rule 9(1), not recovery of differential duty in these facts. A writ of prohibition was therefore maintainable and was issued, rendering the departmental notice unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40608