https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41472 Where excisable goods were removed during the operation of a court injunction that prevented full levy and collection of duty, the later demand for the unpaid differential duty was treated as a straight recovery of duty already attracted but postponed by the court order. The High Court held that the matter was not one of short-levy, non-levy after assessment, or clandestine removal, so the elaborate procedure under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules did not apply. The departmental demand by notice was therefore upheld once the injunction ceased to operate. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:50:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41472 Where excisable goods were removed during the operation of a court injunction that prevented full levy and collection of duty, the later demand for the unpaid differential duty was treated as a straight recovery of duty already attracted but postponed by the court order. The High Court held that the matter was not one of short-levy, non-levy after assessment, or clandestine removal, so the elaborate procedure under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules did not apply. The departmental demand by notice was therefore upheld once the injunction ceased to operate. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41472