Rule 9(2) recovery barred where excisable goods were removed lawfully and no Rule 9(1) contravention was shown.

Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applies only where excisable goods are deposited in, or removed from, a place in contravention of Rule 9(1). Where removals were made under the then prevailing departmental assessment practice and there was no finding of concealment, procedural breach, or removal without payment of duty, the recovery machinery under Rule 9(2) could not be invoked. A later change in the department's classification view did not retrospectively convert compliant past removals into a Rule 9(1) contravention, so the duty demand was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the goods had been removed in accordance with Rule 9(1) and there was no contravention of the removal restrictions.

Analysis: Rule 9(2) applies only where excisable goods are deposited in or removed from a place in contravention of Rule 9(1). The removals in question were made after assessment under the departmental practice then prevailing, and the record did not disclose any charge of removal without payment of duty leviable at the relevant time. There was no finding of concealment, procedural infraction, or other breach that could trigger the penal or recovery machinery under Rule 9(2). A later change in the department's view on classification could not, by itself, convert past compliant removals into a contravention of Rule 9(1).

Conclusion: The demand under Rule 9(2) was not sustainable and recovery of the duty demanded was barred.

---