https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42847 A show cause notice framed under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not sustain a duty demand under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J because the notice did not disclose the requirements of that provision. The High Court held that the ingredients of Rule 9(1) were different from those needed to invoke Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J, and a notice based on one rule could not be treated as satisfying the legal basis of the other. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable to that extent, though the authority was left free to proceed under Rule 10 if permissible in law. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:21:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42847 A show cause notice framed under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not sustain a duty demand under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J because the notice did not disclose the requirements of that provision. The High Court held that the ingredients of Rule 9(1) were different from those needed to invoke Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J, and a notice based on one rule could not be treated as satisfying the legal basis of the other. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable to that extent, though the authority was left free to proceed under Rule 10 if permissible in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42847