Judgment :- The petitioner is a holder of a L-4 licence for manufacturing package tea. According to the rules he has to bring all the loose tea that he purchases and which he desires to convert into package tea into the licensed premises. The packaging which is a process of manufacture under the Act, involves excise duty, and on such package tea he has to pay excise duty on its removal from the licensed premises. In case he does not convert the loose tea into package tea he is permitted to remove the loose tea as such from the licensed premises free of duty on submitting what are called AR 1 forms. Such loose tea can be disposed of by the licensee as loose tea without being subject to the payment of any excise duty. 2.That the petitioner besides being a licensee who carried on the manufacturing of package tea in the licensed premises also dealt in loose tea outside the licensed premises is an admitted position. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise found that the petitioner had been dealing in a large quantity of tea which did not pass through the licensed premises. Since it was open to a licensee to have brought all the loose tea that he purchased into the licensed premises and to have removed the loose tea as such without having to pay excise duty i. e. when that loose tea was removed not as package tea but as loose tea, the failure of the petitioner to bring all his loose tea purchased into the premises was taken by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to indicate that the petitioner. "Should have therefore manufactured this tea into package tea and removed the same without payment of duty due thereon." * Accordingly a show cause notice was issued and the licensee, in reply to the notice pointed out that insofar as loose tea that he purchased and did not bring into the licensed premises was concerned he dealt with it as loose tea and not as package tea so that he was not liable to pay any excise duty on that quantity of loose tea. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, however, declined to accept the explanation, and, merely on speculation, viz., that since the petitioner could have cleared the loose tea without payment of duty, his failure to bring the tea into the licensed premises and to effect clearance as loose tea without payment of duty was suspicious and indicated that he must have converted the loose tea into package tea, proceeded to hold that 29, 403 lbs. which the account showed as sales of loose tea, must really relate to sales of package tea. He accordingly imposed the appropriate duty and penalty. 3.Mr. V. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the Department, does not deny that there is no evidence at all that the petitioner dealt with this quantity of tea as package tea. But he was at pains to make out that the rules require that a person who holds a L-4 licence for package tea must necessarily bring all his purchases of loose tea into the licensed premises. He has referred to Rules 9 and 50 of the Central Excise Rules. Neither of these rules, however, places any such obligation upon a licensed manufacturer of package tea. What these rules contemplate is only that no manufactured tea, that is, package tea, shall be removed from the licensed premises without payment of duty. Nor could any unmanufactured tea that is loose tea, be so removed except under the permission of the appropriate authority granted on AR 1 permit. There is no indication in these rules to show that the person who has taken out a licence for the manufacture of package tea is prevented from dealing in loose tea outside such premises. What Mr. Ramaswamy claims is that that should be the effect of the rules if evasion to the proper payment of duty is to be guarded against. 4.It may well be that the rules are designed to prevent evasion of duty. But what I am concerned with is whether any such restriction upon the business of an individual who happens to take out a licence for manufacturing tea, is made out by the rules. There is no provision which compels the licensee not to deal in loose tea as such except by bringing it into his licensed premises. But what I am concerned with is whether any such restriction upon the business of an individual who happens to take out a licence for manufacturing tea, is made out by the rules. There is no provision which compels the licensee not to deal in loose tea as such except by bringing it into his licensed premises. It may be that, as learned counsel says, this may lead to an avenue by which the payment of duty can be avoided for the dealer may manufacture package tea outside the licensed premises. It is not for this court, however, to read more into the rules than what is clearly indicated. If preventing a person for dealing in loose tea is the only means by which evasion of payment of excise duty can be guarded against it is open to the appropriate authority to reframe the rules to cover the lacuna. Whether a restriction would be in violation of the Constitution is on the question which need not be gone into now. As the rules stand, however, a licensed manufacturer is not prevented from dealing in loose tea outside the licensed premises.5.It follows, therefore, that in the absence of any material which should show that the petitioner had dealt with this quantity of tea as package tea, the imposition of the duty and penalty by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is wholly illegal. His order is accordingly quashed. The rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.