1987 (6) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - When this appeal was heard, the arguments and the counter arguments of the two counsels were concentrated mainly on the facts of the case whether the date of removal of the goods was known or not and whether clearance would mean a proper clearance or not. At the relevant time, in place of the word removed in Rule 9A(l)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules was the word cleared . The arguments of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. A large number of decisions and judgments were also quoted, but they will not effect the dispute. The dispute is not what the two sides thought it was when they debated it in the court. 2. The Additional Collector directed payment of duty in terms of Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules; this rule provides that the rate of duty should be the rate in force on the date on which duty is pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and not the duty prevalent on 3-12-1980 as directed by the Additional Collector. This part of his order is totally erroneous. 4. However, that may be, neither of the two counsels noticed that the Assistant Collector who issued the show cause notice on 25-2-1982 called upon the factory to show cause why duty on the steel ingots and steel castings should not be determined under Rule 9A(4)(iii). T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X