https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72396 Where excisable goods are removed without payment of duty and the date of actual removal can be ascertained from the records, duty is to be determined under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, not Rule 9A(5). The words "cleared" and "removed" were treated as synonymous in the scheme of the excise law, so the applicable rate is the one in force on the date of removal, with any excess duty paid refundable to the assessee. The penalty, having already been moderated, was not further interfered with because the non-payment came to light only on audit and the delay in disclosure was not treated as sufficient mitigation. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 12:06:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72396 Where excisable goods are removed without payment of duty and the date of actual removal can be ascertained from the records, duty is to be determined under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, not Rule 9A(5). The words "cleared" and "removed" were treated as synonymous in the scheme of the excise law, so the applicable rate is the one in force on the date of removal, with any excess duty paid refundable to the assessee. The penalty, having already been moderated, was not further interfered with because the non-payment came to light only on audit and the delay in disclosure was not treated as sufficient mitigation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72396