https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91514 For clandestine removal of unmanufactured tobacco detected before the 11-4-1981 amendment, duty liability was governed by Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the term "cleared" in Rule 9A(1), as then framed, did not extend to unauthorised or clandestine removals. The contrary view that duty should be assessed under Rule 9A(1) by reference to the last possible date of removal was rejected. On that basis, the duty demand on the missing tobacco was set aside, while the remaining parts of the appeal were rejected. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:32:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91514 For clandestine removal of unmanufactured tobacco detected before the 11-4-1981 amendment, duty liability was governed by Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the term "cleared" in Rule 9A(1), as then framed, did not extend to unauthorised or clandestine removals. The contrary view that duty should be assessed under Rule 9A(1) by reference to the last possible date of removal was rejected. On that basis, the duty demand on the missing tobacco was set aside, while the remaining parts of the appeal were rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91514