Excise duty on removal only, not mere manufacture, where goods were destroyed inside the factory and never removed.

Under the Central Excise scheme then in force, duty on excisable goods was attracted on removal from the factory or from a place specified under Rule 9, not merely on manufacture within the factory. Rule 49 postponed payment until goods were about to be issued out of the specified premises or removed from approved storage, and Rule 47 was inapplicable because the goods were not taken for storage. The absence of a specified place of removal meant the factory premises remained the relevant place, so destruction of the mixture within the factory without removal did not trigger excise duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty was leviable on Bentol when the mixture was destroyed within the factory premises without being removed, and whether the absence of a specified place of removal under the excise rules prevented immediate levy.

Analysis: Rule 49 postpones payment of duty on excisable goods made in a factory until they are about to be issued out of the place or premises specified under Rule 9 or removed from an approved storage place. Rule 9 contemplates specification by the Collector of the place from which goods may be removed, and in the absence of such specification the factory premises remain the relevant place. Rule 47 was treated as inapplicable because the goods were not taken for storage. The statutory definition of "place of removal" also supports the view that duty is attracted on removal from the factory or other specified premises, not merely upon manufacture.

Conclusion: Excise duty was not leviable on Bentol in the facts of the case because the goods were not removed from the factory premises and no specified place of removal attracted the levy.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Central Excise scheme then in force, duty on excisable goods is attracted on removal from the place specified under Rule 9 and not merely on manufacture within the factory.

---