Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 56B permitted removal of semi-finished excisable goods to another premises for further processing or testing without payment of duty, and whether duty could validly be demanded at the stage of such removal.
Analysis: Rule 56B was read as a special procedure enabling a manufacturer to remove semi-finished goods for further manufacturing processes or tests without payment of duty, subject to prescribed conditions and subsequent return or clearance. The structure and language of the Rule showed that payment of duty at the stage of removal was not the intended requirement. Requiring duty at that stage would defeat the purpose of the Rule, especially where the goods were to be brought back and finally cleared after completion of processing. The contrary view treating the procedure as one involving prior duty payment was inconsistent with the scheme and terms of the Rule.
Conclusion: The demand of duty on removal of the semi-finished fabrics was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special excise procedure expressly permits removal of semi-finished goods for further processing or testing without payment of duty, duty cannot be demanded at the stage of such removal merely because the recipient premises is unregistered or because further processing remains to be completed.