https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41514 Prosecution for alleged breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules failed because the evidence did not show removal of goods without a valid gate pass or absence of the original copy with the consignment. Section 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for the alleged April 1973 breach, as that penal provision came into force later, on 1 September 1973. The omission to debit gate passes in the Personal Ledger Account was treated as a procedural irregularity, not evasion of duty, since the record showed duty had already been paid. The acquittal was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41514 Prosecution for alleged breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules failed because the evidence did not show removal of goods without a valid gate pass or absence of the original copy with the consignment. Section 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for the alleged April 1973 breach, as that penal provision came into force later, on 1 September 1973. The omission to debit gate passes in the Personal Ledger Account was treated as a procedural irregularity, not evasion of duty, since the record showed duty had already been paid. The acquittal was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41514