Central excise demand notices upheld where no prior show-cause notice was required and duty became recoverable on unauthorised removal.

Central excise demand notices were upheld because the Central Excise Rules did not require a prior show-cause notice or pre-issuance opportunity before issuance of such demands. The Court treated Rules 155 and 160 as operating automatically and noted that the petitioner had removed dutiable tobacco from the warehouse without the required permission, making the duty recoverable. On that basis, the challenge to quash the demand notices failed and the notices remained valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether demand notices of central excise duty were liable to be quashed for want of a prior show-cause notice before their issuance.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the demand notices on the ground that no opportunity had been given before issuance. The Court found no rule in the Central Excise Rules requiring a prior opportunity before issuing such demand notices. It held that the operation of Rules 155 and 160 was automatic, and since the petitioner had removed dutiable tobacco from the warehouse without the requisite permission, the duty demanded was recoverable.

Conclusion: The demand notices were valid and the challenge failed.

---