TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (2) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber (T)]. - This appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Madras. Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Respondent and held that duty could not be demanded from the Respondent in respect of the goods which were despatched under Chapter X procedure to the consignee and not been properly accounted for after despatch from the factory of the Respondent. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red under the first proviso to Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. If this alternative is also not held proper, perhaps there is no rule under which duty can be demanded from a manufacturer who has cleared the goods at nil rate of duty under the guise of the procedure laid down in Chapter X of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and failed to produce the proof of transfer of the possession of the goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of duty, were despatched to the Industrial units who had obtained L 6 licences from the authorities entitling them to receive the goods for the specified industrial purposes as set out in the relevant notification. These consignments according to the authorities did not reach the consignees concerned as there was no acknowledgment in regard to the receipt of those consignments received from the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dents in the facts of this case. The learned appellant-Collector in his grounds of appeal has not spelt out as to how the reasoning of the learned Collector (Appeals) is faulty and has merely urged that when there is a exemption under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules subject to the compliance with the provisions of Chapter X, it is the manufacturer alone who has to be held responsible for pay....