https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285450 Establishment charge under Rule 9 of the Bihar Excise Rules could not be levied on composite licensees holding licences for manufacture of potable liquor along with denatured spirit or other commercial spirit, because the proviso was confined to distilleries licensed solely and wholly for non-potable spirit; the demand was therefore unsustainable in the covered cases. Under Rule 36A, recovery was limited to the actual cost of excise staff deployed for proper supervision and could not extend to all employees in the distillery; because the impugned notices did not identify staff exclusively engaged for the relevant functions, the demands were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh, limited assessment. en-us Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:43:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285450 Establishment charge under Rule 9 of the Bihar Excise Rules could not be levied on composite licensees holding licences for manufacture of potable liquor along with denatured spirit or other commercial spirit, because the proviso was confined to distilleries licensed solely and wholly for non-potable spirit; the demand was therefore unsustainable in the covered cases. Under Rule 36A, recovery was limited to the actual cost of excise staff deployed for proper supervision and could not extend to all employees in the distillery; because the impugned notices did not identify staff exclusively engaged for the relevant functions, the demands were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh, limited assessment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285450