TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this factory and applied for transfer of the licence on 16-10-1963 and a fresh licence was issued in terms of the provisions of Rule 178(3) of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, The transferor had the benefit of exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 131/62, dated 13-6-1962. But the petitioners who are transferees of the factory were held not entitled to the exemption under the said notification as they had applied for licence after 13-6-1962 and the benefit of exemption under the notification was not available to new licensees. In that view the Excise authorities issued a demand under Rule 10A of the rules for Rs. 7,485.66 being the excise duty on the clearance made during the period 21-7-1963 to 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ek to sustain the demand under Rule 10A of the Rules in view of the above decision. But he wants to sustain the demand under Rule 9(2). According to him the goods manufactured by the petitioners during the relevant period have been cleared without payment of duty and therefore, it will straightway attract Rule 9(2). But we have held in W.P. 265 and 266 of 1967 - Murugan and Co. v. Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli - W.P. 265 of 1967 = 1977(1) E.L.T. (J 193) (Mad.), S.P. Tiruvedi and Co. v. Inspector of Central Excise, Cuddalore Range - W.P. 266 of 1967) that Rule 9(2) cannot be invoked when, as in this case, there has been no earlier levy and the goods manufacture had been cleared with the knowledge of the excise authorities w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts applying for licence on or after 13-6-1962 shall not be eligible for this exemption." It is seen that the licence issued under the rules is personal to the licensee and therefore, the petitioners who are transferees of the factory from the former licensee can only be treated as new licensees after the relevant date that is 13-6-1962, mentioned in the second proviso to the notification. It is not in dispute that the petitioners applied for licence only on 16-10-1963 long after the crucial date, namely 13-6-1962 referred to in that proviso. The petitioner's case that they have only applied for a renewal of the earlier licence held by their transferors cannot be accepted for the rules make it clear that the licence issued is personal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
