( 1 ) SHOW-CAUSE notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for contravention of rules 9, 173 B, C, F, G, Q, 174 and 198 of Central Excise Rules for manufacture and clearance of fertilizer without paying excise duty has been challenged as without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) RULE 9 (1) as it stood in 1979 prohibited removal of goods from any place where they were produced, cured or manufactured whether for consumption, export or manufacture without payment of excise duty. And if any excisable goods were removed, in contravention of Sub-rule (1) then under Sub-rule (2) of the Rule the producer or manufacture was liable to pay not only the duty leviable on it, but penalty as well and the goods were liable to confiscation. The expression, in contravention of was considered by the Honble Supreme Court in N. B. Sanjana v. E. S. and W Mills (1971 S. C. 2039 ). It was held, "to attract Sub-rule (2) to Rule 9, the goods should have been removed in contravention of sub-rule (1 ). It is not the case of the appellants that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Sub-rule (1 ). We are of the opinion that in order to attract Sub-rule 2, the goods should have been removed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document