1985 (7) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant. Mrs. Dolly Saxena, for the Respondents. [Order]. -  On the matter being called, Shri K. Narayanan, the learned Advocate for the appellants, submits that this case is squarely covered by ratio of the decision of Order No. 90/85-D, dated 18-1-1985 in Appeal No. E/639/80-D in the case of R. Subbiah. The basic facts in this case are that there was a shortage of 8460 kgs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to this quantity of tobacco. The penalty of Rs. 750/- has also been paid and no relief was sought in regard to this penalty. However, as regards the payment of duty on 8460 kgs. of tobacco held to have been illicitly removed, the learned Counsel submitted that the clandestine removal was not being disputed, but this argument was based on the fact that this quantity of tobacco was held as having b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ply to the cases of such illicit removals'. She submitted that sub-rule (5) should be held as not applicable to the case. It was her submission that in such a situation sub-rule (1) was more appropriate. Even though the exact date of removal might not be known, it must have been on some date prior to 18-2-1976, or that very date, and therefore, the last of the possible dates, namely 18-2-1976, sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to light prior to 11-4-1981 the rate of duty would be covered by the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9A. On being invited to show why the ratio of that decision would not apply in the present case, Smt. Saxena again submitted that where the date of removal was known or could be presumed that should be taken as the relevant date and provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9A should apply. 5. ....