https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42052 Show cause notices under the Central Excise regime were treated as sufficiently particular where annexures supplied the relevant periods, quantities, duty details, and related material, so they were not struck down for vagueness. Proceedings under Rule 9(2) were regarded as maintainable where excisable goods were alleged to have been removed in breach of Rule 9(1), and the truth of those allegations was left for inquiry. The rule was also viewed as supported by the rule-making power under Section 37, including power to provide for assessment, notice, and recovery of unpaid duty. Delay, laches, and pendency of a civil suit did not invalidate the notices on the facts stated. en-us Tue, 27 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:01:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42052 Show cause notices under the Central Excise regime were treated as sufficiently particular where annexures supplied the relevant periods, quantities, duty details, and related material, so they were not struck down for vagueness. Proceedings under Rule 9(2) were regarded as maintainable where excisable goods were alleged to have been removed in breach of Rule 9(1), and the truth of those allegations was left for inquiry. The rule was also viewed as supported by the rule-making power under Section 37, including power to provide for assessment, notice, and recovery of unpaid duty. Delay, laches, and pendency of a civil suit did not invalidate the notices on the facts stated. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42052