https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73444 Cushion compound captively consumed in making tread rubber with cushion backing was treated as excisable under Item 16A(2), supported by earlier case law and retrospective deeming provisions covering captive intermediary products, so the levy challenge failed. The demand under Rule 9(2) was upheld because the manufacture and captive use had not been disclosed in the classification lists, distinguishing cases involving proper declaration and nil assessment. However, the valuation of duty was not properly examined below, so the computation was set aside and remanded for fresh reassessment on the correct intermediary-product prices during the relevant period. en-us Fri, 18 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 18:51:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73444 Cushion compound captively consumed in making tread rubber with cushion backing was treated as excisable under Item 16A(2), supported by earlier case law and retrospective deeming provisions covering captive intermediary products, so the levy challenge failed. The demand under Rule 9(2) was upheld because the manufacture and captive use had not been disclosed in the classification lists, distinguishing cases involving proper declaration and nil assessment. However, the valuation of duty was not properly examined below, so the computation was set aside and remanded for fresh reassessment on the correct intermediary-product prices during the relevant period. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73444