https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73573 Co-polymer beads made for captive use were treated as excisable goods because they emerged as a distinct, storable product with recognised uses, and absence of open-market sale did not negate duty liability. Classification under Tariff Item 15A(1)(ii) was not finally proved, since co-polymerisation alone did not establish that the beads were resinous or plastic in character; that issue required fresh factual determination. The duty demand was also confined to the normal six-month period under Section 11A, as the facts had been disclosed and no suppression or misstatement to evade duty was shown. en-us Tue, 16 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:31:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73573 Co-polymer beads made for captive use were treated as excisable goods because they emerged as a distinct, storable product with recognised uses, and absence of open-market sale did not negate duty liability. Classification under Tariff Item 15A(1)(ii) was not finally proved, since co-polymerisation alone did not establish that the beads were resinous or plastic in character; that issue required fresh factual determination. The duty demand was also confined to the normal six-month period under Section 11A, as the facts had been disclosed and no suppression or misstatement to evade duty was shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73573