9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on application filed by the appellant before the Central Government against order No. 152 of 1980, dated 7-3-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. 2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration Shri Nadkarni sought an adjournment on the ground that the person acquainted with the facts of the case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sending the goods outside their factory. He, therefore, directed payment of differential duty on 13611 litres of benzene and 1034.5 litres of toluene. He also directed payment of duty on the shortage of 223.4 litres of benzene and 585 litres of toluene. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have complied with the provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The further contention of the appellants in the revision application was that the distilled toluene sent to their Baroda unit for use in their own manufacturing unit. It was contended that what was sent was not toluene but distilled toluene duly processed with chemicals like soda ash. This aspect has not been taken into considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are required to obey the provision of Bombay Prohibition Act they cannot contend successfully that they are entitled to infringe Rule 196 or that the infringement of Rule 196 should be condoned because they are required to obey the Bombay Prohibition Act. For obeying Bombay Prohibition Act if it became necessary to violate Rule 196, the proper course for the appellants was to approach the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
