https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82081 Cigarettes already rolled and capable of being smoked remained excisable goods even when taken captive for empirical test smoking within the factory, so duty was payable on that manufacture. The rule requiring packing before delivery affected the stage of removal and duty collection, not the existence of the taxable article. However, the extended limitation period under Section 11A could apply only on proof of deliberate suppression of material facts, and long departmental awareness of the testing activity defeated that requirement, so the older demand was time-barred. In the absence of mala fides and after the suppression finding failed, the penalties were set aside. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:49:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82081 Cigarettes already rolled and capable of being smoked remained excisable goods even when taken captive for empirical test smoking within the factory, so duty was payable on that manufacture. The rule requiring packing before delivery affected the stage of removal and duty collection, not the existence of the taxable article. However, the extended limitation period under Section 11A could apply only on proof of deliberate suppression of material facts, and long departmental awareness of the testing activity defeated that requirement, so the older demand was time-barred. In the absence of mala fides and after the suppression finding failed, the penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82081