https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440264 Excise duty could not be demanded on finished goods kept in an outside godown merely on the assumption that the premises was a warehouse and the area-based exemption had ended. A godown cannot be treated as a warehouse unless it satisfies the statutory definition under Rule 2(h) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and is registered under Rule 9. The demand also failed because the show cause notice did not allege that the premises was a registered warehouse, and the notice itself proceeded on an earlier transfer of the goods. In the absence of the foundational allegation and proof, the demand was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:14:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440264 Excise duty could not be demanded on finished goods kept in an outside godown merely on the assumption that the premises was a warehouse and the area-based exemption had ended. A godown cannot be treated as a warehouse unless it satisfies the statutory definition under Rule 2(h) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and is registered under Rule 9. The demand also failed because the show cause notice did not allege that the premises was a registered warehouse, and the notice itself proceeded on an earlier transfer of the goods. In the absence of the foundational allegation and proof, the demand was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440264