https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107733 Duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules could not be demanded from a person who was not the manufacturer of the excisable goods concerned. The demand related to polyester staple fibre procured as replenishment material for an export-linked obligation, but the show cause notice wrongly proceeded against the appellant even though the goods were manufactured by another entity. As Rule 9(2) governs removal of excisable goods from the factory of production, the demand on the appellant was legally unsustainable, leaving the department free only to proceed, if permissible in law, against any bond furnished. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:22:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107733 Duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules could not be demanded from a person who was not the manufacturer of the excisable goods concerned. The demand related to polyester staple fibre procured as replenishment material for an export-linked obligation, but the show cause notice wrongly proceeded against the appellant even though the goods were manufactured by another entity. As Rule 9(2) governs removal of excisable goods from the factory of production, the demand on the appellant was legally unsustainable, leaving the department free only to proceed, if permissible in law, against any bond furnished. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107733