Invoice-based clearance and prior duty payment under amended excise rules upheld, displacing earlier permission for gas removal.

An earlier administrative permission allowing liquefied gas to be removed in tanker lorries without prior duty payment could not survive the amended Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The amended rule required excisable goods to be cleared only under an invoice showing the prescribed particulars, including duty, and the Board's circular reinforcing that procedure was treated as a valid supplementary instruction. The Court rejected the challenge that the rule was invalid because it might cause double duty, holding that any such difficulty arose from the petitioner's delivery method and not from illegality in the rule. The communication withdrawing the earlier permission and the circular were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector's communication withdrawing the earlier permission, and the Board's circular requiring clearance of liquefied gas only on payment of duty and under invoice, were valid in view of the amended Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the earlier permission granted under Rule 173G(1) proviso (iv) and Rule 52A.

Analysis: The earlier permission allowed removal of liquefied gas in tanker lorries without prior payment of duty, with duty to be worked out later on actual delivery. The amended Rule 52A substituted the earlier procedure and required excisable goods to be delivered from the factory or warehouse only under an invoice signed by the owner or authorised agent, with the specified quantities, value and duty shown in the invoice. The Board's circular was treated as an administrative instruction issued within its power to issue supplementary instructions on matters arising out of the Rules, and the Court held that such instruction was not arbitrary or illegal. Once Rule 52A was amended, any earlier administrative permission inconsistent with the statutory rule could not continue to operate. The plea that the amended rule was bad because it might lead to double payment of duty was rejected as a matter arising from the delivery system followed by the petitioner and not from any invalidity in the rule itself.

Conclusion: The impugned communication and the Board's circular were upheld, and the petitioners had no enforceable right to clear excisable goods without an invoice and prior payment of duty.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because the amended excise procedure controlled the field and displaced the earlier permission; the writ petition was therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior administrative permission under the Central Excise Rules cannot survive where it is inconsistent with an amended statutory rule requiring invoice-based clearance and payment of duty before removal of goods.

---