Rule 56B removal without duty protects earlier clearances; later revocation cannot retrospectively create liability.

Excise goods removed under a valid subsisting permission for further processing under Rule 56B could not attract duty at the despatching factory merely because the permission was later withdrawn. The operative principle is that removal without payment of duty remained lawful while the special procedure was in force, and later revocation could not retrospectively fasten duty liability on earlier removals. The demand was therefore unsustainable against the assessee, subject to verification of the fact and quantum of duty paid by the receiving factory.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand on tea cleared from the despatching factory could be sustained when the goods were removed under permission granted under Rule 56B and were later processed and cleared on payment of duty from the receiving factory, and whether subsequent withdrawal of the permission could retrospectively fasten duty liability on the despatching factory.

Analysis: Rule 56B permitted removal of excisable goods for further manufacturing processes to another premises without payment of duty, subject to the prescribed procedure. The goods were sent under that permission and were ultimately cleared from the processing factory on payment of duty. The subsequent revocation of the permission could not operate to the prejudice of the assessee for removals already made while the permission was in force. Once the rule specifically allowed such removal without payment of duty, the demand could not be sustained merely on the ground that the original permission was later found to have been wrongly granted. The record, however, left the dates and quantum of duty payment by the processing factory for verification.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable against the assessee, and the appeals were allowed, with liberty to the Assistant Collector to verify the fact and quantum of duty paid by the processing factory.

Final Conclusion: The decision treats the goods as lawfully moved under the subsisting special procedure and holds that later revocation of that permission does not retrospectively revive duty liability on the despatching factory.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are removed under a valid subsisting permission for further processing under a special procedure allowing removal without payment of duty, subsequent withdrawal of that permission does not retrospectively create duty liability for such removals.

---