https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762355 Central excise duty could not be demanded on pre-budget stock of branded garments lying in the assessee's godown where the goods had been manufactured by job workers and cleared at the nil rate prevailing on the relevant date. The goods were supplied in ready-packed condition under the assessee's brand name, and the levy could not be shifted to the later date of removal from the godown merely because exemption was withdrawn after clearance. Reliance on Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was incorrect because the rule had already been deleted, and duty liability could not be fixed on a removal-based theory once the goods had been validly cleared at the applicable nil rate. 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 Central excise duty could not be demanded on pre-budget stock of branded garments lying in the assessee's godown where the goods had been manufactured by job workers and cleared at the nil rate prevailing on the relevant date. The goods were supplied in ready-packed condition under the assessee's brand name, and the levy could not be shifted to the later date of removal from the godown merely because exemption was withdrawn after clearance. Reliance on Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was incorrect because the rule had already been deleted, and duty liability could not be fixed on a removal-based theory once the goods had been validly cleared at the applicable nil rate. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762355