https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82724 Duty on goods cleared under the Chapter X concessional procedure was treated as payable by the buyer-concession holder who obtained the goods and executed the bond, because the obligation under Rules 192 and 196 was to account for the goods and use them only in the permitted manner. Section 11A was held inapplicable to the manufacturer-seller, since the dispute was not one of ordinary non-levy, short-levy, short-payment, or erroneous refund by the manufacturer, but of the buyer's later failure to comply with the concessional scheme. The demand on the manufacturer was therefore unsustainable, and the department could not pursue recovery in a manner that risked double collection. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:50:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82724 Duty on goods cleared under the Chapter X concessional procedure was treated as payable by the buyer-concession holder who obtained the goods and executed the bond, because the obligation under Rules 192 and 196 was to account for the goods and use them only in the permitted manner. Section 11A was held inapplicable to the manufacturer-seller, since the dispute was not one of ordinary non-levy, short-levy, short-payment, or erroneous refund by the manufacturer, but of the buyer's later failure to comply with the concessional scheme. The demand on the manufacturer was therefore unsustainable, and the department could not pursue recovery in a manner that risked double collection. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82724