9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter being called, Shri K. Narayanan, the learned Advocate for the appellants, submits that this case is squarely covered by ratio of the decision of Order No. 90/85-D, dated 18-1-1985 in Appeal No. E/639/80-D in the case of R. Subbiah. The basic facts in this case are that there was a shortage of 8460 kgs. of tobacco from the warehouse. The shortage and substitution was noticed on 18-2-1976. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught in regard to this penalty. However, as regards the payment of duty on 8460 kgs. of tobacco held to have been illicitly removed, the learned Counsel submitted that the clandestine removal was not being disputed, but this argument was based on the fact that this quantity of tobacco was held as having been clandestinely removed. Since this has been observed on 18-2-1976, it must have taken place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicable to the case. It was her submission that in such a situation sub-rule (1) was more appropriate. Even though the exact date of removal might not be known, it must have been on some date prior to 18-2-1976, or that very date, and therefore, the last of the possible dates, namely 18-2-1976, should have been taken as the date of removal. In that view, the rate of duty applicable would have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being invited to show why the ratio of that decision would not apply in the present case, Smt. Saxena again submitted that where the date of removal was known or could be presumed that should be taken as the relevant date and provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9A should apply. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides. We find that Shri Narayanan is right in saying tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
