https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122732 Where an appellant claims that excisable goods were manufactured by another entity under a memorandum of understanding, the claim is weakened if the appellant continues to hold central excise registration, file returns, and does not communicate the arrangement to the department. The record must show that the transfer arrangement was given legal effect and that the alleged transferee followed the required excise procedure, including seeking transfer of registration. On the available facts, the appellant did not establish a strong prima facie case against the duty demand, and the materials indicated that duty liability could still attach to the appellant. A further pre-deposit was therefore required, with waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on compliance. en-us Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:53:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122732 Where an appellant claims that excisable goods were manufactured by another entity under a memorandum of understanding, the claim is weakened if the appellant continues to hold central excise registration, file returns, and does not communicate the arrangement to the department. The record must show that the transfer arrangement was given legal effect and that the alleged transferee followed the required excise procedure, including seeking transfer of registration. On the available facts, the appellant did not establish a strong prima facie case against the duty demand, and the materials indicated that duty liability could still attach to the appellant. A further pre-deposit was therefore required, with waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122732