Self-removal procedure and duty payment under prescribed rules do not amount to contravention when duty is paid as determined by the assessee.

Under the self-removal procedure in Chapter VIIA, an assessee complying with Rule 173F determines its own duty liability and may clear goods after paying that duty. Reading Rules 9(1), 173F and 173A together, the article states that removal in accordance with the prescribed self-assessment scheme is not a contravention of Rule 9(1). On the facts noted, the assessee paid duty at 15% and cleared the goods accordingly, so there was no breach of Rules 173F, 173G(1) or Rule 9(1), and the penalty under Rule 173Q was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for alleged contravention of the self-removal procedure and removal of excisable goods on payment of duty at a rate lower than that later approved was sustainable.

Analysis: The self-removal procedure under Chapter VIIA governed the clearance of the goods. Under Rule 173F, an assessee who has complied with the prescribed procedure is required to determine its own duty liability and may remove the goods after paying the duty so determined. The Court read Rule 9(1) together with Rule 173F and Rule 173A, holding that where duty is paid in the manner prescribed under the self-removal scheme, removal cannot be treated as a violation of Rule 9(1). Since the appellant had determined duty at 15% and cleared the goods accordingly, there was no contravention of Rules 173F, 173G(1), or Rule 9(1) on the facts found.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 173Q was not justified and was set aside.

---