https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107738 Departmental denial of Rule 56C relief failed because the tank-and-coil assembly was not shown, on the notice and evidence relied on, to be an evaporator as alleged; the technical materials indicated that the evaporator function lay in the cooling coil, not the water tank. The department could not sustain denial on a new classification theory not pleaded in the show cause notice. Where the goods did not satisfy Rule 56C conditions, duty liability remained with the actual manufacturer and could not be recovered from the recipient merely because the goods were received back under the special procedure. The duty demand and penalty against the recipient were therefore not sustained. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:34:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107738 Departmental denial of Rule 56C relief failed because the tank-and-coil assembly was not shown, on the notice and evidence relied on, to be an evaporator as alleged; the technical materials indicated that the evaporator function lay in the cooling coil, not the water tank. The department could not sustain denial on a new classification theory not pleaded in the show cause notice. Where the goods did not satisfy Rule 56C conditions, duty liability remained with the actual manufacturer and could not be recovered from the recipient merely because the goods were received back under the special procedure. The duty demand and penalty against the recipient were therefore not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107738