https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74622 Where differential excise duty on textured yarn depended on whether duty had been paid on the base yarn, the department bore the burden of proving non-payment before raising demand against the processor. Since the assessee was not the manufacturer of the base yarn, it could reasonably assume that base duty had been discharged unless the department established otherwise. The processor was not required to produce direct proof of actual payment by the base yarn manufacturer. On that reasoning, the demand for differential duty against the assessee was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 08 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:57:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74622 Where differential excise duty on textured yarn depended on whether duty had been paid on the base yarn, the department bore the burden of proving non-payment before raising demand against the processor. Since the assessee was not the manufacturer of the base yarn, it could reasonably assume that base duty had been discharged unless the department established otherwise. The processor was not required to produce direct proof of actual payment by the base yarn manufacturer. On that reasoning, the demand for differential duty against the assessee was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74622