TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Belur and Aluminium Corporation of India, Asansol, and had removed the same from the factory without payment of the Central Excise duty leviable during the period from 17th July, 1963 to 31st December, 1964. It is undisputed that under item 27 of the schedule to the relevant Tariff of Central Excise Act and Rules, aluminium is dutiable. A demand for ₹ 9772.56 P. was raised under rule 10A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid sum of money. 2. The first point was that the demand was without jurisdiction. It is urged that under rule 10A demand had been made. Rule 10A was not applicable. That is so. It has been so held by the respondent authorities. It was also urged that rule 10 was not applicable. That is also so. It is not the case of the respondent that rule 10 was at all applicable. It was then contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he obligation of the manufacturer who had removed the dutiable goods to have paid the duty and not having paid the duty, rule 9 (2) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the manner which has been invoked. 3. So far as the contention that no opportunity had been given, it is also undisputed that the figure of the total aluminium which had been manufactured, had been arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
