TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (9) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd paints. In respect of the said articles manufactured by him, a demand was issued for payment of Excise duty of Rs. 49,249.20 for the period 1-1-1963 to 15-7-1964. That demand was challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who by his order dated 30th January, 1968 directed the withdrawal of the demand forthwith on the ground that the petitioner who is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Collector of Central Excise and has therefore, filed the above Writ Petition for quashing the two demands, as confirmed by the respondent in appeal. 3.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends at the first instance that the subsequent demands which are impugned in this writ petition are contrary to the decision rendered by the appellate authority, the Assistant Collector of Customs on 30t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory provisions as well as the statutory Notifications issued by the Central Government. 4.The Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contends that the two demands impugned in this Writ Petition cannot be sustained either under Rule 9(2) or under Rule 10-A. According to the Learned Counsel, in respect of both the periods, there has been no direction by the Collector of Central Excise requirin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and Rule 9(1) read with Rules, 47, 52 and 52(a) set down an elaborate procedure as to how the duty has to be paid at the time of clearance of the goods from the premises of the factory. When the authorities have not fixed the time, place and the manner of payment of excise duty as contemplated by Rule 9(1), there cannot be any contravention of that Rule. Therefore, it has to be held that the dem....