TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , viz. W.P. Nos. 630 and 980 to 984 of 1972 in each of which the petitioner is a manufacturer of cotton fabrics in a factory commonly known as powerlooms and challenges an order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tirupur circle, refusing to allow him the benefit of the special procedure detailed in Section E-III of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules thereinafter referred to as the Rules) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or. No sum was paid along with that application either. On the 25th May, 1967, the petitioner paid into the treasury a sum of Rs. 25 which would have been due to him on account of excise duty in case the special procedure contained in Section E-III was applicable to him. On production of the receipt evidencing the payment, the concerned Excise Inspector allowed the petitioner to remove the goods m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a result of those proceedings. 4. The following two contentions have been raised in support of the petitions : (1) There was no attempt by the petitioners to remove the goods from their factories with a view to evade the levy of excise duty and therefore the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 were not attracted to the case of any of them so that none of them was liable to any penalty. (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty is paid and accepted and the goods are allowed to be removed by the department, there is no question of any attempted evasion or clandestine removal, so that sub-rule (1) is inapplicable and if that be so, the provisions of sub-rule (2) do not come into play. In this view of the matter, the first respondent was not entitled to impose any penalty on the petitioners and to that extent his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
