JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - Messrs Munshi Lal Budh Sen, the respondent owned a licensed warehouse. Under a licence granted under the Central Excise Act and the Rules the respondent firm is authorised to warehouse the tobacco purchased by him. 2. It appears that 98 bags of tobacco was purchased by Messrs Ram Swarup Ganga Sagar of Baharpur, district Etawah from the respondent firm in September,1958. In October, 1958 the same firm purchased tobacco amounting to 107.35 maunds from the respondent firm. The first consignment reached the destination warehouse in Konch and was duly warehoused there, in the warehouse of Chunni Lal Giasilal, who was the commission agent in these transactions. 3. It appears that the second consignment did not reach the destination warehouse. On 13th November, 1958 the Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Farrukhabad enquired from the respondent to inform him about the location of the tobacco. The respondent replied that enquiries have revealed that the tobacco did not reach the destination warehouse. Thereupon, by a notice dated 23rd January, 1959 the Central Excise Authorities demanded from the respondent duty of Rs. 4,849.72 under Rule 156-B of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal which was, however. dismissed on 13-8-1959 by the Collector, Central Excise. Thereupon, the respondent instituted a writ petition in this court. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that so long the consignee does not comply with sub-rule (3) of Rule 156-A of the Central Excise Rules the consignor cannot validly be called upon to present an application in triplicate as contemplated by sub-rule (4) of Rule 156-A. Consequently the consignor cannot be held guilty of failure to present the aforesaid application in triplicate within the meaning of Rule 156-B and the Department was not justified in demanding penalty from the respondent, upon the goods having failed to reach the destination warehouse. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Department not to demand any duty from the respondent in respect of the tobacco in dispute. 5. In our opinion the learned Single judge misconstrued the relevant rules. Chapter VIII of the Excise Manual lays down the rules for warehousing. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Department not to demand any duty from the respondent in respect of the tobacco in dispute. 5. In our opinion the learned Single judge misconstrued the relevant rules. Chapter VIII of the Excise Manual lays down the rules for warehousing. Under Rule 140-A person keeping a private warehouse has to furnish a bond in the prescribed form with such surety or sufficient security, in such amount and under such conditions as the Collector approves, and binding himself : "to pay the duty due on the goads deposited therein, or for the due and safe removal of such goods from one part or division of any warehouse to any other part or division of same warehouse, or to any other warehouse, and for the due observance of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Act, these Rules and any order made hereunder in respect thereof." 6. Presumably the respondent, when he became the keeper of a warehouse, must have furnished a bound as required by Rule 140. This bond is for binding the warehouse keeper in respect of the three matters mentioned above, of which one is the due and safe removal of the goods deposited in the warehouse from that warehouse to another warehouse. 7. Rule 156 (A) prescribes the procedure in respect of removal of goads from one warehouse to another and it provides : "156-A. Procedure in respect of goods removed from one warehouse to another-(1) the application for removal of goods from one warehouse to another shall be presented by the consigner in triplicate, and in the proper Form, to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal, at least 24 hours before the intended removal. together with such other information as the Collector may by general or special order require. (2) Such officer shall then take account of the goods and after completing the removal certificate on all the copies of the application, shall send the duplicate to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of destination, and hand over the triplicate to the consigner for despatch to the consignee. He shall also deliver to the consigner a transport permit in the proper Form. He shall also deliver to the consigner a transport permit in the proper Form. (3) On arrival of the goods at the warehouse of destination, the consignee shall present them together with the triplicate application and the transport permit to the officer-in-charge of such warehouse, who shall, after taking account of the goods, complete the rewarehousing certificate on the duplicate and the triplicate application, return the duplicate to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal, and triplicate to the consignee for despatch to the consigner. (4) The consigner shall present the triplicate application duly endorsed with such certificate to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal within ninety days of the date of issue of the transport permit under sub-rule (2)." Rule 156-B lays down the consequences for failure is present triplicate application mentioned in sub-rule 4 of Rule 156-A. Under sub-rule (1) if the consigner fails to present the triplicate application to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal in the manner laid down in sub rule (4) of Rule 156-A and the duplicate application endorsed with the rewarehousing certificate has also not been received by such officer from the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of destination, the consigner shall, upon a written demand being made by the former officer pay the duty leviable on such goods within ten days of the notice of demand and if the duty is not so paid he shalt not be permitted to make fresh removals of any warehoused goods from one warehouse to another until the duty is paid or until the triplicate application is so presented or the duplicate application sir is so received. 8. It will be seen that the consigner becomes liable to pay the duty if the two conditions co-exist. One in his failure to present the triplicate application and the non-receipt of the duplicate application duly endorsed with the rewarehousing certificate. and the second is that a demand for the payment of duly is made upon him. The liability to pay the duty has been made dependent upon the failure of the consigner to present a triplicate application as required by sub-rule (1) of Rule 156-A or any such other or similiar default committed by him. It has to be borne in mind that Rule 156-B does not provide for any punishment upon a defaulting consigner. It only holds him liable to pay the duty. It has to be borne in mind that Rule 156-B does not provide for any punishment upon a defaulting consigner. It only holds him liable to pay the duty. Under the other Rules the goods deposited in private warehouse, like the respondent's warehouse, the goods cannot be removed therefrom without the payment of the excise duty. The exception is when the goods are removed in order to take them to another warehouse as contemplated by Rule 156-A. 9. In such cases the consigner has to make an application in triplicate to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal. The officer-in-charge of the removal warehouse shall also send the duplicate to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of destination and hand over the triplicate to the consigner for despatch to the consignee. He shall also deliver to the consigner a transport permit in the proper Form. On arrival of the goods at the warehouse of destination the consignee is to present the triplicate application and after the requisite endorsement return it to the consigner. The consigner has to present a duplicate application to the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal within the prescribed period of time. This is the procedure amounting on the application of the consigner. 10. Rule 153, however, lays down that when the goods are removed from the one warehouse to another warehouse the consigner or the consignee of the goods shall, before removal, enter into a bond in a proper form, with such surety or sufficient security, and under such conditions as the Collector approves. in a sum equal at least to the duty payable on such goods for the due arrival and rewarehousing thereof to the warehouse of destination. In view of this Rule the consigner or the consignee has to enter into the requisite bond. In the present case the consignee entered into a bond while the consigner did not. 11. In our opinion, the fact that the consigner did not enter into a bond as provided by Rule 153 in immaterial to his liability to present a triplicate application required by Rule 156-A (4). The liability to pay the duty under Rule 156-B is dependent on the failure of the consigner to present the triplicate application irrespective of the reasons or causes for the failure. It is not dependent on the failure being without sufficient cause. 12. The liability to pay the duty under Rule 156-B is dependent on the failure of the consigner to present the triplicate application irrespective of the reasons or causes for the failure. It is not dependent on the failure being without sufficient cause. 12. It appears that the scheme of the rules is to protect the Government in respect of the duty payable on Warehoused goods, as against both, the consigner and the consignee. Simply because the consignee has entered into a bond under Rule 153 the consigner is not releaved from the requirement of making a triplicate application and his failure to present the certified triplicate makes him liable to pay the duty under Rules 156-A and B. 13. In our opinion, the appellants were justified in demanding duty from the respondent. 14. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed with costs.