TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26-4-1973, lying in the premises of the factory though the goods noted in those gate passes had been removed out of the factory on 25th and 26th April, 1973 and that was a breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner Excise detected that no entry in the Personal Ledger Account (P.L.A.) was made in respect of the gate pass nos. 304 to 307 issued on 26-4-1973 and this amounts to breach of Rule 9(1) and 173-F of the Central Excise Rules. A complaint was, therefore, filed against the respondent on 23rd October, 1973. 2. The prosecution examined Mathur Lal Chaudhary (P.W. 1), Ved Prakash Rastogi (P.W. 2) and closed the evidence. The accused examined K.V. Panicker (D.W. 1), R.C. Mathur (D.W. 2) in defence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pass for his own use clearly marked "EXTRA COPY NOT FOR COVERING TRANSPORT". The original copy shall be produced by the carrier, on demand by the Central Excise Officer while the goods are en route to such destination from the factory : Provided that in respect of removal of excisable goods consumed within the factory for manufacturer of other goods in a continuous process, the manufacturer may make out a single gate pass at the end of the day. (3) If all the packages comprising a consignment are despatched in one lot at any one time, only one gate pass shall be made out in respect of the consignment. If, however, a consignment is split up into two or more lots each of which is despatched separately either on the same day or on differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Central Excise Act provides- "Whoever commits any of the following offences, namely - X X X X (bb) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder or in any way concerns himself with such removal;" 5. Sub-clause (bb) has been inserted with effect from 1st September, 1973 and in the case before me the appellants are alleged to have committed the breach of Rule 52-A in April, 1973 so it is not possible to punish the respondent for breach of rule under section 9(l)(bb) of the Central Excise Act even if the breach of rule is proved. 6. The evidence on the record showed that the Assistant Excise Commissioner did not find that any excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
