https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42122 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules applies only to clandestine or unauthorised removal of excisable goods in contravention of Rule 9(1), so notices issued on facts showing prior departmental knowledge and earlier proceedings could not be sustained. Where the department had already examined the removals and dropped the earlier matter on the view that the goods were not excisable, later notices treating the same removals as clandestine were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. A writ petition challenging such jurisdictional defect was not premature, because availability of departmental remedies does not bar Article 226 relief where proceedings are initiated without authority on admitted facts. en-us Sat, 04 Dec 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:21:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42122 Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules applies only to clandestine or unauthorised removal of excisable goods in contravention of Rule 9(1), so notices issued on facts showing prior departmental knowledge and earlier proceedings could not be sustained. Where the department had already examined the removals and dropped the earlier matter on the view that the goods were not excisable, later notices treating the same removals as clandestine were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. A writ petition challenging such jurisdictional defect was not premature, because availability of departmental remedies does not bar Article 226 relief where proceedings are initiated without authority on admitted facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 04 Dec 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42122