https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42406 Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted the Government to grant or vary exemption by a different method, provided the duty charged stayed within the statutory ceiling. The impugned exemption notification was therefore intra vires because it altered only the basis of exemption and did not enhance the basic additional duty beyond the limit fixed by the governing statute. Rule 9A further made the rate applicable on the date of actual removal, so goods manufactured before the notification but removed later were liable at the then prevailing rate. The earlier exemption was not frozen at manufacture, and the Revenue could recover the differential duty. en-us Tue, 08 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:26:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42406 Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permitted the Government to grant or vary exemption by a different method, provided the duty charged stayed within the statutory ceiling. The impugned exemption notification was therefore intra vires because it altered only the basis of exemption and did not enhance the basic additional duty beyond the limit fixed by the governing statute. Rule 9A further made the rate applicable on the date of actual removal, so goods manufactured before the notification but removed later were liable at the then prevailing rate. The earlier exemption was not frozen at manufacture, and the Revenue could recover the differential duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42406