https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45100 Rule 9(2) was treated as permitting excise duty to be demanded even after excisable goods had been removed from the factory without payment of duty, so removal on gate passes did not bar a later demand. In relation to patent and proprietary medicines, labelling required for marketability under the Drugs Act, 1940 was held to be an incidental and ancillary step in completing manufacture under section 2(f), and unlabelled medicines were not treated as fully manufactured for excise purposes. The demand was therefore upheld and the assessee's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:10:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45100 Rule 9(2) was treated as permitting excise duty to be demanded even after excisable goods had been removed from the factory without payment of duty, so removal on gate passes did not bar a later demand. In relation to patent and proprietary medicines, labelling required for marketability under the Drugs Act, 1940 was held to be an incidental and ancillary step in completing manufacture under section 2(f), and unlabelled medicines were not treated as fully manufactured for excise purposes. The demand was therefore upheld and the assessee's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45100