https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41615 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules applies only where excisable goods are clandestinely removed with intent to evade duty. Clearances disclosed through the RT-12 return and assessment procedure, with departmental knowledge and completed assessment, do not establish clandestine removal; the notice could not therefore be sustained under Rule 9(2). Rule 56A, in force on the relevant date, permitted adjustment of proforma credit but did not authorise the proposed financial recovery for breach of the special procedure. A later recovery-enabling amendment could not validate the notice retrospectively. The show cause notice and consequential proceedings were quashed, and enforcement of the demand was restrained. en-us Sat, 14 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41615 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules applies only where excisable goods are clandestinely removed with intent to evade duty. Clearances disclosed through the RT-12 return and assessment procedure, with departmental knowledge and completed assessment, do not establish clandestine removal; the notice could not therefore be sustained under Rule 9(2). Rule 56A, in force on the relevant date, permitted adjustment of proforma credit but did not authorise the proposed financial recovery for breach of the special procedure. A later recovery-enabling amendment could not validate the notice retrospectively. The show cause notice and consequential proceedings were quashed, and enforcement of the demand was restrained. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 14 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41615