https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50222 Duty under Notification No. 239/86-C.E. could not be fastened on the L-6 licence holder merely because it received and used the goods, where the actual L-4 manufacturer who availed the exemption was not identified or put to notice. The exemption operated at the manufacturer's clearance stage, and in the absence of the CT-2 certificates on record, no valid basis existed to sustain the demand against the recipient. No misuse or diversion of goods received under Chapter X was alleged, and the eligibility of Plough Lamps as parts was left undecided because the manufacturer was not before the authority. The demand was therefore held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:56:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50222 Duty under Notification No. 239/86-C.E. could not be fastened on the L-6 licence holder merely because it received and used the goods, where the actual L-4 manufacturer who availed the exemption was not identified or put to notice. The exemption operated at the manufacturer's clearance stage, and in the absence of the CT-2 certificates on record, no valid basis existed to sustain the demand against the recipient. No misuse or diversion of goods received under Chapter X was alleged, and the eligibility of Plough Lamps as parts was left undecided because the manufacturer was not before the authority. The demand was therefore held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50222