https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41436 Rule 8(1) permitted exemption from excise duty on terms and conditions, but it could not be used to alter the statutory incidence of levy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Explanation to Notification No. 88/77-C.E., which deemed the actual manufacturer to be a non-manufacturer and treated the buyer or brand owner as the manufacturer for footwear exemption, was beyond delegated power because it reversed the Act's basic scheme. The Explanation was therefore invalid, and the assessment order and demand notice founded solely on it could not stand. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:02:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41436 Rule 8(1) permitted exemption from excise duty on terms and conditions, but it could not be used to alter the statutory incidence of levy under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Explanation to Notification No. 88/77-C.E., which deemed the actual manufacturer to be a non-manufacturer and treated the buyer or brand owner as the manufacturer for footwear exemption, was beyond delegated power because it reversed the Act's basic scheme. The Explanation was therefore invalid, and the assessment order and demand notice founded solely on it could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41436