https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72660 Rule 56B was construed as permitting removal only of excisable semi-finished goods for further processing to complete the same product, and not the removal of a finished marketable product for conversion into another finished excisable product. Partially oriented yarn was held to be a finished product in its own right, so its intended draw texturisation did not bring it within Rule 56B. The earlier grant of permission under Rule 56B was treated as an executive, discretionary order rather than an adjudicatory determination, so it did not attain finality requiring revision under section 35E(2). The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction therefore failed, while the Rule 56B basis for removal was rejected. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2011 11:17:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72660 Rule 56B was construed as permitting removal only of excisable semi-finished goods for further processing to complete the same product, and not the removal of a finished marketable product for conversion into another finished excisable product. Partially oriented yarn was held to be a finished product in its own right, so its intended draw texturisation did not bring it within Rule 56B. The earlier grant of permission under Rule 56B was treated as an executive, discretionary order rather than an adjudicatory determination, so it did not attain finality requiring revision under section 35E(2). The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction therefore failed, while the Rule 56B basis for removal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72660