https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756953 Where electrical goods are manufactured by independent job workers at their premises, excise liability attaches to the actual manufacturer under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, not to a recipient who merely arranges supply; on the recorded facts, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. A limitation challenge based on the gap between the relevant period and the show cause notice was rejected because the intervening investigation and lack of demonstrated full knowledge in the earlier period prevented the notice from being treated as time barred. Once the substantive demand failed, the connected penalty on the director under Rule 26 also could not survive and was set aside. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Aug 2024 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756953 Where electrical goods are manufactured by independent job workers at their premises, excise liability attaches to the actual manufacturer under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, not to a recipient who merely arranges supply; on the recorded facts, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. A limitation challenge based on the gap between the relevant period and the show cause notice was rejected because the intervening investigation and lack of demonstrated full knowledge in the earlier period prevented the notice from being treated as time barred. Once the substantive demand failed, the connected penalty on the director under Rule 26 also could not survive and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756953