9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - This bunch of 5 appeals is taken up together for disposal in this single order, the fact being common. 2. The appellants manufactured dust tea. Finding no market therefor they requested the jurisdictional Assistant Collector for permission to send the same to another factory under the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his he held that the despatching factories were not allow to clear the tea without payment of duty. On this logic he confirmed the demand. He did not impose a penalty in any case. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the goods were fully manufactured goods, that the permission under Rule 56B was wrongly given and had subsequently, been withdrawn and that since the liability to pay duty on the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... semi-finished goods, for carrying out certain manufacturing processes, or (ii) excisable goods for carrying out tests, to some other premises of his or to the premises of another person and to bring back such goods to his factory, without payment of duty, or to some other licensed premises of his or to the premises of another assessee and allow these goods to be removed on payment of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken as discharge of duty liability on orthodox dust tea which was cleared without payment of duty." This belief of the Collector is wrong inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 56B specifically permit removal of goods without payment of duty. It is correct that the contested goods were not within the parameters of the said rule. It may be that the permission was revoked subsequently but during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
