https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73722 Removal of benzene and toluene from licence premises without prior Central Excise permission was contrary to Rule 196, so the duty demand was sustained. Compliance with the Bombay Prohibition Act did not excuse removal without first obtaining excise authority approval. A later notification issued in 1980 could not be relied on for a removal that occurred in 1974 because it was not then in force. The argument that processing had changed the goods so they were no longer toluene was rejected, as the essential character of the goods remained unchanged. en-us Tue, 08 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73722 Removal of benzene and toluene from licence premises without prior Central Excise permission was contrary to Rule 196, so the duty demand was sustained. Compliance with the Bombay Prohibition Act did not excuse removal without first obtaining excise authority approval. A later notification issued in 1980 could not be relied on for a removal that occurred in 1974 because it was not then in force. The argument that processing had changed the goods so they were no longer toluene was rejected, as the essential character of the goods remained unchanged. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73722