https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81287 Exemption under Notification No. 33/81-C.E. was treated as available to manufacturers who satisfied its terms, and it could not be denied merely because the activity was detected later or because licensing or Rule 56-A procedures were not followed where those conditions were not mandatory. On that basis, the applicants established a prima facie case in the excise dispute over brass shells and alleged scrap, and the Tribunal dispensed with pre-deposit and stayed recovery proceedings pending the appeal. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:57:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81287 Exemption under Notification No. 33/81-C.E. was treated as available to manufacturers who satisfied its terms, and it could not be denied merely because the activity was detected later or because licensing or Rule 56-A procedures were not followed where those conditions were not mandatory. On that basis, the applicants established a prima facie case in the excise dispute over brass shells and alleged scrap, and the Tribunal dispensed with pre-deposit and stayed recovery proceedings pending the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81287