https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92319 Notification No. 214/86 was available where goods were manufactured from customer-supplied raw materials and returned to the supplier, and a limited procedural departure did not defeat the exemption. The record did not show that the leather was not received by the assessee or that the shoe uppers were not returned to the supplier. Any lapse was only procedural, so the benefit could not be denied merely because the assessee followed an incorrect procedural route for a short period. The demand was therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:23:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92319 Notification No. 214/86 was available where goods were manufactured from customer-supplied raw materials and returned to the supplier, and a limited procedural departure did not defeat the exemption. The record did not show that the leather was not received by the assessee or that the shoe uppers were not returned to the supplier. Any lapse was only procedural, so the benefit could not be denied merely because the assessee followed an incorrect procedural route for a short period. The demand was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92319