Assessed excise duty and later removal without permit were treated as recovery issues, not evasion under the Act.

Removal of excisable goods already assessed to duty, without payment and without a transport permit, is distinguished from actual evasion of duty under the Central Excise Act. The text states that once goods have been duly assessed, later removal from the warehouse without permit or non-payment of the assessed amount does not by itself constitute evasion for purposes of Section 9(B). In such cases, the unpaid duty is to be recovered through the statutory recovery machinery under Section 11 and Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, rather than by criminal prosecution for evasion.

---

---

Issues: Whether removal of excisable goods already assessed to duty, without payment and without transport permit, constituted evasion of excise duty punishable under Section 9(B) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The governing distinction was between actual evasion of duty and mere non-payment of an assessed duty. Where goods had already been subjected to excise assessment, subsequent removal from the warehouse without permit or without payment did not by itself amount to evasion within the meaning of Section 9(B). The proper remedy for unpaid assessed duty lay in recovery under the statutory procedure provided by Section 11 and Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, rather than prosecution for evasion.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 9(B) was unsustainable and was set aside.

---