https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41949 Movement of tobacco from licensed premises to an unlicensed adjacent premises without permission was treated as a contravention of Rules 32(2) and 39 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the claim of ignorance of the permission requirement did not avoid liability. On the duty-recovery issue, the Court found that the seized tobacco had been shown as duty-paid stock temporarily removed during repairs, and the revenue had not disproved that position by the available evidence. Recovery of excise duty from the security deposit was therefore unsustainable, while confiscation consequences and redemption fine remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41949 Movement of tobacco from licensed premises to an unlicensed adjacent premises without permission was treated as a contravention of Rules 32(2) and 39 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the claim of ignorance of the permission requirement did not avoid liability. On the duty-recovery issue, the Court found that the seized tobacco had been shown as duty-paid stock temporarily removed during repairs, and the revenue had not disproved that position by the available evidence. Recovery of excise duty from the security deposit was therefore unsustainable, while confiscation consequences and redemption fine remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41949