https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74712 Production from multiple licensed units was treated as aggregate production for applying Notification No. 105/80-C.E., so the exemption limit was tested on the combined output rather than each unit separately. The text states that non-sale does not by itself remove excisability, because goods may remain excisable even if not sold. It also states that later embedding of RCC poles in the earth does not change their character as manufactured goods for excise purposes. A further plea that the poles were used within the factory was rejected because they were not manufactured for in-factory use. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:16:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74712 Production from multiple licensed units was treated as aggregate production for applying Notification No. 105/80-C.E., so the exemption limit was tested on the combined output rather than each unit separately. The text states that non-sale does not by itself remove excisability, because goods may remain excisable even if not sold. It also states that later embedding of RCC poles in the earth does not change their character as manufactured goods for excise purposes. A further plea that the poles were used within the factory was rejected because they were not manufactured for in-factory use. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74712