https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108762 Explanation II to Notification No. 42/98 was treated as applicable only where a hot air stenter was factually present and capable of triggering the deeming fiction. On the recorded facts, the stenter had been installed, then sealed at the assessee's request, and later substantially dismantled, with only part of the machinery remaining in the factory during the relevant period. The commentary states that the mere physical presence of remnants was insufficient to satisfy the notification's preconditions, so duty liability could not be fastened on that basis. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:31:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108762 Explanation II to Notification No. 42/98 was treated as applicable only where a hot air stenter was factually present and capable of triggering the deeming fiction. On the recorded facts, the stenter had been installed, then sealed at the assessee's request, and later substantially dismantled, with only part of the machinery remaining in the factory during the relevant period. The commentary states that the mere physical presence of remnants was insufficient to satisfy the notification's preconditions, so duty liability could not be fastened on that basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108762