Meaning of "removal" in excise law excludes fiscal transfer of capital goods on these facts.

The alleged transfer of capital goods did not amount to "removal" on the facts found by the adjudicating authority, which had concurrently held that there was no fiscal removal of the goods. Applying the settled understanding of "removal" in the cited precedents, the HC held that the expression did not extend to a fiscal movement of goods from one place to another in this case. The question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged transfer of capital goods amounted to "removal" giving rise to a substantial question of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had concurrently found that there was no fiscal removal of the capital goods. Relying on the settled understanding of "removal" in the cited precedents, the Court held that the expression did not extend to a fiscal removal of goods from one place to another on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.

---