1985 (4) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Account (PLA) and without a valid gate pass. There is also some reference to central excise registers being tampered with and alterations made unauthorisedly. 2. At the time of hearing, the representative of the appellant sought to urge that action under Rule 9(2) is bad in law as provisions relating to sugar, which is a commodity under the Self Removal Procedure, is all contained in Chapter VII-A itself and in support, relied on Rule 173A. As alternate submission, he indicated that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. What happened was a bona fide error as the Superintendent (Production who normally attends to excise formalities was on leave on that day and the Manager (Administration) authorised the removal of 186 quinta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chapter shall prevail." This itself is an indication that the provisions of other Chapters could be applicable when there is a conflict between the different provisions, the provisions of Chapter VII-A shall prevail. I, therefore, reject the contention of the representative of the appellant. 5. What has happened in this case may be broadly summarised as follows : a) removal of sugar without payment of duty, an act contrary to the provisions of rule 9(1); b) removal without the quantity being shown correctly in a gate pass and thus, in fact, removed without a gate pass dealt with in Rule 52A; c) incorrect maintenance of accounts or attempted erasures thereto, which brings in Rule 226. For infraction of Rule 9(1), penalties have be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the provisions of the former shall prevail in terms of Rule 173A. There is a conflict in the sense that Rule 173Q provides for a higher quantum of penalty than the one under Rule 9(2). 7. Rule 52(A) again deals with removal of goods without a gate pass which was not done in the present case. Hereto, what I have observed in regard to 9(2) would be applicable. 8. So far as rule 226 is concerned, there is no direct conflict between 173Q and the penal provisions of Rule 226. 9. In the above view of the matter, I consider that the imposition of penalties both under Rules 9(2) and 52(A) on the one hand and under Rule 173Q on the other is not in order. The orders imposing the first two penalties are therefore set aside. 10.&emsp....