9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules 1944. It was stated that the appellants have manufactured and cleared excisable goods without determination and payment of proper Central Excise duty by debiting proper accounts in their PLA to the tune of Rs. 15,460/-. A show cause notice was issued to them and thereafter the adjudication proceedings were held by the authority. 2. The learned Additional Collector held that the facts and circumstances of the case did not convince him to conclude that there was any sort of suppression of fact meriting invocation of the proviso to Section 11A and, therefore, he held that the demand made in the subject show cause notice demanding the duty is not sustainable as the same is beyond the period of six months. He stated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had removed the goods. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 173F of the Central Excise Rules. He also contended that there is no violation of Rule 173G(1) of the Rules and he had complied with the same. Sri Banerjee also contended that there is no violation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. It was his contention that Rule 173 comes under special Chapter VIIA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail over all the other provisions in other chapters by virtue of Rule 173A, of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also contended that since the appellant had determined the duty in accordance with Rule 173F of the Central Excise Rules, there cannot be any contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 173Q is justified. 6. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. It is now seen that the self removal procedure is included in Chapter VIIA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under Rule 173A it is stated that where there is a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and the provisions contained in any other Chapter, in relation to such excisable goods, the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail. Under Rule 173F it is stated that, if the assessee has complied with the provisions of Rule 173B, 173D and, where applicable 173C he shall himself determine his liability for the duty due on the excisable goods intended to be removed and shall not, except as otherwise expressly provided in these rules, remove such goods unless he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogether in view of the fact that it is specifically mentioned in Rule 9(1) that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place from where they are produced until the excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is prescribed in these Rules. The words in these Rules also refers to Rule 173F, and when the appellant had removed the goods in accordance with Rule 173F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that there is a violation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the facts and circumstances of this case. In such circumstances I am unable to accept the contentions advanced by Sri A. Chowdhury, learned JDR, in this behalf. 7. Sri Chowdhury also conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
