Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. -the petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of the memo dated 6-10-1994 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, division II, Jamshedpur (Annexure-1)whereby he has informed the petitioner no.1 company that the permission granted by the Additional Collector vide letter dated 25-2-87 stands automatically withdrawn in view of amendment to Rule 52-A of the Central Excise rules, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said rules ). The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the circular issued by the Central Board of excise and Customs (annexure-2) dated 11-2-1994 directing that clearance of liquified gas in lorries should not be allowed without payment of duty and such permissions granted, if any, should be immediately withdrawn. 2. Petitioner No.1-company, namely, M/s. Indian Oxygen Limited manufactures compressed oxygen and compressed nitrogen as well as other gases and also liquified industrial and medical gases. One of the factories of the petitioner-company is located in jamshedpur. After production the company stores the liquified gases in vaccum insulated storage tanks. The liquified gases are stored in such tanks at a temperature of approximately 1850 centigrade. Such liquified gases are despatched to its customer in cryogenic tanker lorries. Before, 1986, the liquified gases were supplied to the customers of the petitioner-company who used to fill up their storage tanks when the tanks became completely dry. Having regard to the capacity of the tanks of their customers, the petitioner-company could supply to them the exact quantity of liquified gases which their storage tanks could contain. The petitioner-company, however, received complaints from its customers that very often their production activities came to a grinding halt for want of supply of liquified oxygen/nitrogen, because they had to wait for their tanks to go completely dry and could not fill up their tanks at an earliest stage. With a view to solve the problems faced by their customers, the petitioner-company evolved a revised system of partial supply at regular intervals on weighment basis keeping weigh-bridge pass with the tanker driver. With a view to solve the problems faced by their customers, the petitioner-company evolved a revised system of partial supply at regular intervals on weighment basis keeping weigh-bridge pass with the tanker driver. The company obtained an order in writing from the Additional collector, Central Excise, Patna, on the 25th of February, 1987 (Annexure-5) in exercise of power under Rule 173-G (1)proviso (iv) and 52a of the Rules allowing it to remove the liquified gases in tanker-lorries from its factory under the pass-out system without payment of central Excise duty before hand and to make out L. P.1 and to determine the duty and debit the account-current afterwards subject to the observance of the terms, conditions, restrictions and procedure prescribed by the order. 3. The case of the petitioner-company is that after obtaining such permission, it has been following the procedure approved by the said order of the Additional Collector. The transport-tankers are weighed both before and after decantation. If certain amount of residual liquid gas remained in the tanker, the same was ascertained by weighment of the tanker after it had topped up the customers various installations. Thus, it was only when the tanker arrived at the factory that the petitioner-company was able to ascertain the exact quantity of gas that had been sold. The customer was also required to give a signed delivery note stating the exact quantity received by him at the storage tank installed at his premises. The petitioner No.1 company, thereafter, paid the duty on the exact amount that had been delivered. 4. However, by the impugned memo dated 6th October, 1994, petitioner No.1-company was informed that the permission already granted by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna, vide letter dated 25th february, 1987, regarding clearance of liquified gases and carbide aludge , without issue of invoice and without payment of duty at the time and place of clearance from the factory stood automatically withdrawn because Rule 52-A of the Rules dealing with the situation had been completely changed and replaced by a new Rule on or after 1-4-1994. The petitioner-company was, therefore, directed to comply with the provisions of the amended Rule 52-A unless it got order otherwise from the competent authority. 5. It appears that the respondents have also obeyed the directions contained in the instructions issued by the central Board of Excise and Customs on 11-2-94 (Annexure-2 ). The petitioner-company was, therefore, directed to comply with the provisions of the amended Rule 52-A unless it got order otherwise from the competent authority. 5. It appears that the respondents have also obeyed the directions contained in the instructions issued by the central Board of Excise and Customs on 11-2-94 (Annexure-2 ). The Board issued a circular containing the instruction on 11-2-94 to the effect that Rules 4,49 as well as Rule 173-G of the Rules pre-suppose payment of duty for each consignment by debit to account-current. The Board, therefore, decided that clearance of liquified gases in tankerlorries should not be allowed without payment of duty. Such permission granted, if any, should be immediately withdrawn. The suppliers of such gases be directed to effect clearance against orders from buyers indicating the specified quantities required by them so that gate-passes can be issued and duties paid in each case before removal of gases. 6. Dr. Pal appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that in exceptional circumstances, proviso (iv) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 173-G empowers the Collector to make an order in writing requiring an assessee or class of assesees to determine the duty and debit the account-current in such manner as may be specified by him in such order. The Additional Collector had exercised the power vested in him under the Rules. The order of the Additional Collector in terms makes reference to the aforesaid rule as well as Rule 52-A. In the exceptional circumstances, the exercise of power was justified. Such an order passed by the Additional Collector could not be overridden by the Assistant collector who had issued the direction as contained in annexure-1 dated 6-10-1994. He further submitted that the powers exercised by the Additional Collector was binding upon the Assistant collector since the said order had not been recalled by him. The power-exercised by the Additional Collector being in the nature of a discretionary power conferred by statute, could not be taken away by issuance of a circular by the central Board of Excise and Customs. He, therefore, submitted that Annexure-1 as well Annexure-2 were wholly unjustified. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue submitted that in view of the amendment to Rule 52-A, the petitioner cannot be permitted to deliver from its factory excisable goods except under an invoice signed by the owner of the factory or his authorised agent. He, therefore, submitted that Annexure-1 as well Annexure-2 were wholly unjustified. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue submitted that in view of the amendment to Rule 52-A, the petitioner cannot be permitted to deliver from its factory excisable goods except under an invoice signed by the owner of the factory or his authorised agent. This obviously implied that the manufacturer had to give the exact quantity value of goods supplied to its customers and the duty paid thereon. There was no scope for removing the goods without first paying the duty as shown in the invoice. Obviously, therefore, on account of the amendment to rule 52-A, the earlier order issued by the Addl. Collector could not be operated because it would come in conflict with the statutory rules. In view of the change of law, the earlier direction of the Additional Collector become inoperative. 8. It may be noticed that the Circular of the Central Board dated 11-2-1994 (annexure-2) was issued even before the amendment of Rule 52a which came into force on the 1st day of april, 1994. The Board, after considering Rules 9, 49 as also Rule 173-G of the Rules observed that the aforesaid rules pre-suppose payment of duty for each consignment by debit to account-current. Therefore, clearance of liquified gases intanker lorries could not be allowed without payment of duty. It, therefore, directed that such permission granted, if any, should be immediately withdrawn and the suppliers be directed to effect clearance against orders from buyers indicating the specified quantities required by them so that gate-passes can be issued and duties paid in each case before removal of gas. 9. A mere perusal of Rule 173g discloses that under the said Rule, every assessee is obliged to keep an account-current with the Collector separately for each excisable goods in such form and manner as the Collector may require, of the duties payable on the excisable goods. The assessee is obliged to periodically make credit in such account current by cash payment into the treasury so as to keep the balance in such account-current sufficient to cover the duty due on the goods intended to be removed at any time; and every such assessee is obliged to pay the duty determined by him for each consignment by debit to such account-current before removal of the goods. It is no doubt true that under proviso (iv) to sub-rule (1) of rule 173-G, the Collector is authorised in circumstances of exceptional nature to require an assessee to determine the duty and debit the account-current in such manner as may be specified by him in such order. The power exercised under the aforesaid proviso is administrative in nature and can be recalled at any time. The order of the additional Collector (Annexure-5) on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner-company, in effect, authorised tite petitioner-company to remove gases without payment of excise duty. It was only after the tanker returned to the factory of the petitioner company that it was ascertained as to the quantity supplied to various customers and duty payable thereon. Under rule 233, the Board has been vested with power to issue supplementary instructions providing for any supplemental matters Arising out of the Rules. The Board can issue instructions relating to administrative matters. 10. In the instant case, the view taken by the Board cannot be said to be either perverse or arbitrary. On a fair reading of the Rule, the Central Board was convinced that the practice of permitting goods to be removed from the factory premises without payment of excise duty was not justified and, therefore, it was perfectly, within its power to issue supplementary instruction requiring the authorities to recall such orders if any passed by them and insist upon payment of duty before removal of liquified gas in tanker lorries. It is not as if the circular of the Board interferes with the exercise of quasi-judicial power by any authority under the Rules. The instruction is purely administrative in nature and deals with administrative matters. I find no illegality which may vitiate the circular of the Board (Annexure-2) dated 11-2-94. 11. What is, however, very significant is the fact that under Rule 52-A as it existed before the 1st of April, 1994, excisable goods were required to be delivered from a factory under a gate-pass signed by the owner of the factory and counter-signed by the proper officer. There was no insistence upon the goods being delivered from a factory under the invoice. The said Rule 52-A was substituted by a new Rule which came into force on 1st of April, 1994. There was no insistence upon the goods being delivered from a factory under the invoice. The said Rule 52-A was substituted by a new Rule which came into force on 1st of April, 1994. Under the Rule 52-A, as amended, no excisable goods shall be delivered from a factory or a ware-house, except under an invoice signed by the owner of the factory or his authorised agent. The amended Rule also provides for the detailed procedure to be followed in such cases. Obviously, the invoice has to mention the specified quantities supplied to each customer its value and the duty paid thereon. Rule 52a, therefore, does not permit the delivery of goods from the factory of the manufacturer without specifying the exact quantities to be supplied to customers and without payment of duty which must be specified in the invoice. 12. In view of the amended Rule 52-A, the Assistant Collector by his communication dt.6-10-94 (Annexure-1) informed the petitioner-company that the liquified gases could not be removed from the factory premises without issue of invoice and without payment of duty at the time and place of clearance from the factory. In my view, he was justified in doing so. It is well known that several amendments to the rules were effected by the Central govt. with a view to implement the modvat scheme. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that under Rule 57-G of the Rules, the buyers of the petitioner-company would be denied MODVAT credit unless duty paying document issued under Rule 52-A was made available to them. It is, therefore, submitted that with the amendment of Rule 52-A there has been a significant change in the law and any administrative order passed by any authority under the Rules which became inconsistent with the amended Rules became inoperative. I am of the view that the submission has merit and must be accepted. 13. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 52-A will become bad because that rule may compel manufacturers like the petitioners to pay duty twice. This submission is misconceived, and it is on account of the delivery system followed by the petitioner-company that such a situation has arisen. 13. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 52-A will become bad because that rule may compel manufacturers like the petitioners to pay duty twice. This submission is misconceived, and it is on account of the delivery system followed by the petitioner-company that such a situation has arisen. If the petitioner-company follows the delivery system as it existed before 1986, it may have no difficulty, in complying with the requirements of Rule 52-A. The mere fact that a particular Rule is inconvenient to a particular manufacturer, cannot be a ground for holding the Rule to be bad, if the rule is otherwise reasonable and in public interest. 14. Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that under Rule 51-A, the Collector or the Board may by a general or special order permit the duty paid goods to enter or to be retained in any part or premises of the factory. Obviously, therefore, there is provision in the Rules to avoid such a situation where a manufacturer may have to pay duty twice over. 15. Having regard to all aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that the communication of the Assistant collector (Annexure-1) as also Boards instruction (Annexure-2) are legal and justified. In view of the significant amendment to Rule 52-A of the Rules, no excisable goods can be delivered from a factory or a warehouse except under an invoice signed by the owner of the factory or his authorised agent. Under the new form prescribed, the value of the goods supplied to a particular customer is to be declared and there is no scope for making any adjustment later on. The excisable goods cannot leave the factory premises without the necessary documents which must accompany such goods including invoice, challans, advise or other documents of similar nature which are generally used for sale or removal of goods and which must contain all the particulars as required under the Act or the Rules. 16. The petitioners cannot, therefore, claim a right to deliver excisable goods from their factory without the invoice declaring the value of the goods supplied to a purchaser. The arrangement earlier approved by the Addl. Collector cannot be operated without violation of Rule 52-A as amended. There is, therefore, no ground to quash annexures 1 and 2. This writ-petition must, therefore, be rejected, 17. The arrangement earlier approved by the Addl. Collector cannot be operated without violation of Rule 52-A as amended. There is, therefore, no ground to quash annexures 1 and 2. This writ-petition must, therefore, be rejected, 17. It is, however, made clear that it is open to the petitioners to move the appropriate authorities under the Rules afresh for such orders or directions as they may be able to secure from the authorities in accordance with law. 18. This writ-petition is accordingly rejected, but without any order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.