9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on that quantity of cigarettes which were removed by it out of the stock produced by to a laboratory for the purpose of test. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Additional Collector has held that duty was payable. 2. By the notice issued on 30th May, 1990 the Department proposed to recover duty on samples cleared during the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been aware that samples were being taken for testing, in accordance with the long established practice not only in the appellant s factory but generally in the industry. He also advanced various arguments on merits. 3. The Departmental Representative contends that the role of the officer posted in a factory under physical control is confined to assessment of finished excisable goods under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls etc., in order to ensure, as far as possible, there is no escapement of duty. The finding of the Tribunal in LML Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 434 that payment of duty beyond six months is time barred because the charge of clandestine removal is incongruous in a unit under physical control has significance. 5. Apart from this, the Basic Manual of Departmental Instructions on Excisable M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in implementing their instructions, which were administratively holding on them would have led the appellant to believe that the no duty was payable on such samples. There was therefore no incentive for the appellant to suppress the removal with intent to evade duty. Therefore, it has to be held that the assessee did not remove these cigarettes with intent to evade duty. For this requirement is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
