https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762355 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, concluding that duty liability could not be imposed on pre-budgeted stock of branded garments cleared at a 'Nil' rate of duty. The Tribunal found that the branding was conducted by job-workers prior to clearance, not by the Appellant, and emphasized that Rule 9-A, which previously determined duty and tariff valuation based on the date of removal, had been deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, granting consequential relief to the Appellant. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762355 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, concluding that duty liability could not be imposed on pre-budgeted stock of branded garments cleared at a 'Nil' rate of duty. The Tribunal found that the branding was conducted by job-workers prior to clearance, not by the Appellant, and emphasized that Rule 9-A, which previously determined duty and tariff valuation based on the date of removal, had been deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, granting consequential relief to the Appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762355