https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82151 Under the Central Excise self-removal scheme, excisable goods could not be removed unless duty was paid and the Personal Ledger Account had sufficient balance to cover the duty due. The commentary explains that Rule 9(1) and Rule 173F required prior payment before removal, while Rule 173G(1) required an adequate account current balance. It further states that Rule 173Q(1)(a) did not require proof of mens rea as an ingredient for action, and that later replenishment of the account before filing RT-12 returns did not validate an otherwise unauthorized clearance. The matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law and natural justice. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:30:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82151 Under the Central Excise self-removal scheme, excisable goods could not be removed unless duty was paid and the Personal Ledger Account had sufficient balance to cover the duty due. The commentary explains that Rule 9(1) and Rule 173F required prior payment before removal, while Rule 173G(1) required an adequate account current balance. It further states that Rule 173Q(1)(a) did not require proof of mens rea as an ingredient for action, and that later replenishment of the account before filing RT-12 returns did not validate an otherwise unauthorized clearance. The matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law and natural justice. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82151