https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50850 Contemporaneous company correspondence and requests for extension and documents were treated as sufficient evidence that the show cause notice had been served on the appellant company. The duty demand for clandestine removal of excisable goods was sustained because statements of company officials and other relied-upon material supported suppression, and no rebuttal was produced. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was confined to clearances made after that provision came into force, with fresh quantification required for that limited period. Penalty on the Managing Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was set aside because conscious knowledge or reason to believe was not established. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:54:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50850 Contemporaneous company correspondence and requests for extension and documents were treated as sufficient evidence that the show cause notice had been served on the appellant company. The duty demand for clandestine removal of excisable goods was sustained because statements of company officials and other relied-upon material supported suppression, and no rebuttal was produced. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was confined to clearances made after that provision came into force, with fresh quantification required for that limited period. Penalty on the Managing Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was set aside because conscious knowledge or reason to believe was not established. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50850