TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the closer of factory or when the machines manufacturing the notified goods are sealed then such interpretation will mean that the rules have provided such provisions which are beyond the provision under Sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Act and therefore it cannot be interpreted that even if non notified goods are removed, the said 1st proviso to Rule 10 prohibits abatement - appeal allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were not the goods notified under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants claimed abetment for the period from 16/08/2008 to 31/08/2008, which is subject to matter of Appeal No. E/2250/2011-EX[SM]. Similarly, appellants claimed abatement for the period from 16/09/2008 to 31/09/2008 and from 01/10/2008 to 15/10/2008 which is subject to matter of Appeal No. E/2249/2011-EX[S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Heard the Learned A.R. who has submitted that the said proviso makes a mention that notified goods should not be manufactured and no goods should be removed including notified and non notified goods. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that if non notified goods are prohibited from removal during the closer of factory or when the machi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
