https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91534 Duty could not be demanded from the receiver of inputs merely because the stock was found in excess, as liability for allegedly non-duty-paid inputs lay against the manufacturer and not the recipient. Section 11A read with Rule 9(2) did not authorise recovery from the receiver in these circumstances. The inputs were entered in RG-23A Part-I without corresponding Part-II credit, and had already been used in the manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty. Even if duty had been confirmed, Modvat credit under Rule 57E would have been available, leaving no revenue loss. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the orders were set aside. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:49:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91534 Duty could not be demanded from the receiver of inputs merely because the stock was found in excess, as liability for allegedly non-duty-paid inputs lay against the manufacturer and not the recipient. Section 11A read with Rule 9(2) did not authorise recovery from the receiver in these circumstances. The inputs were entered in RG-23A Part-I without corresponding Part-II credit, and had already been used in the manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty. Even if duty had been confirmed, Modvat credit under Rule 57E would have been available, leaving no revenue loss. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the orders were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91534