https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93766 Central excise duty remained payable by the manufacturing unit at the time of removal of goods, because the statutory obligation rested on the actual manufacturer and was not discharged merely by another unit later paying duty. The demand against the manufacturing unit was therefore upheld. On penalty, the imposition was sustained but the quantum was reduced, and the separate penalties under Rule 9(2) and Rule 226 were set aside. The result was that the duty liability stood confirmed, while ancillary penal consequences were partially diluted in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:00:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93766 Central excise duty remained payable by the manufacturing unit at the time of removal of goods, because the statutory obligation rested on the actual manufacturer and was not discharged merely by another unit later paying duty. The demand against the manufacturing unit was therefore upheld. On penalty, the imposition was sustained but the quantum was reduced, and the separate penalties under Rule 9(2) and Rule 226 were set aside. The result was that the duty liability stood confirmed, while ancillary penal consequences were partially diluted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93766