Rule 56B permission bars later contravention claim and double duty demand on consignor for permitted bulk tea movement.

Bulk tea removed from one factory to another under departmental permission granted under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not later be treated as a contravention of that rule. Once permission had been granted for the movement, the department could not retrospectively allege breach merely because it later viewed the goods as finished product. As duty had already been paid by the consignee unit, the same duty could not be demanded again from the consignor unit. The duty demand against the consignor was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded from the consignor factory for bulk tea removed under permission granted by the department under Rule 56B, and whether such removal could be treated as a contravention of the rule.

Analysis: The respondents had moved bulk tea from one factory to another under departmental permission granted under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The later view of the department that the goods were finished product did not alter the fact that the removal had taken place pursuant to permission already granted. Once such permission had been extended, the department could not subsequently allege contravention of the rule for the same movement. Further, duty having been paid by the consignee unit, the same duty could not again be demanded from the consignor unit.

Conclusion: The removal was not in contravention of Rule 56B, and the duty demand against the consignor unit was unsustainable.

---