https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167012 Where manufacture of excisable goods had permanently ceased and the closure was communicated to the excise authorities, duty liability under the simplified procedure did not continue merely because the licence was not formally surrendered. The non-surrender of the licence was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive basis to keep duty alive in the absence of further manufacture. The authorities' inconsistent withdrawal of demands for later months on the same facts also supported this position. The duty demand for the post-closure period was therefore unsustainable. en-us Tue, 22 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:26:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167012 Where manufacture of excisable goods had permanently ceased and the closure was communicated to the excise authorities, duty liability under the simplified procedure did not continue merely because the licence was not formally surrendered. The non-surrender of the licence was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a substantive basis to keep duty alive in the absence of further manufacture. The authorities' inconsistent withdrawal of demands for later months on the same facts also supported this position. The duty demand for the post-closure period was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167012