https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90367 Rule 57G(2) required a receiving manufacturer to take reasonable steps to ensure inputs were covered by duty-paid documents, but it did not permit the recipient or local excise officers to reopen a classification already accepted by the competent jurisdictional officers for the supplier. The responsibility for correct classification remained with the officers having jurisdiction over the supplier, and a demand could not rest on an arbitrary reclassification at the recipient stage. Penalty also could not be sustained where the supplier was found not guilty of wilful misdeclaration. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:27:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90367 Rule 57G(2) required a receiving manufacturer to take reasonable steps to ensure inputs were covered by duty-paid documents, but it did not permit the recipient or local excise officers to reopen a classification already accepted by the competent jurisdictional officers for the supplier. The responsibility for correct classification remained with the officers having jurisdiction over the supplier, and a demand could not rest on an arbitrary reclassification at the recipient stage. Penalty also could not be sustained where the supplier was found not guilty of wilful misdeclaration. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90367