https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81892 Where semi-finished goods are moved to another factory for completion and duty is paid when the finished goods are cleared, a fresh duty demand on the same goods is not sustainable because it would amount to double levy; any separately established short-payment must be pursued independently. However, removal of goods before prior permission under Rule 56B remains a breach of the statutory removal condition, and such contravention can attract penalty under Rule 173Q on a strict liability basis without proof of mens rea where the statute does not require it. The document therefore distinguishes between an unsustainable duplicate duty demand and a valid penalty for unauthorised removal. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81892 Where semi-finished goods are moved to another factory for completion and duty is paid when the finished goods are cleared, a fresh duty demand on the same goods is not sustainable because it would amount to double levy; any separately established short-payment must be pursued independently. However, removal of goods before prior permission under Rule 56B remains a breach of the statutory removal condition, and such contravention can attract penalty under Rule 173Q on a strict liability basis without proof of mens rea where the statute does not require it. The document therefore distinguishes between an unsustainable duplicate duty demand and a valid penalty for unauthorised removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81892