https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89512 Maltodextrin was discussed as a product whose duty liability turned on two points: limitation and marketability. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable where a classification list describing the product and process had been approved and there was no suppression, deliberate misdeclaration, or mismatch between declared and actual manufacture. On excisability, the product was treated as an unstable intermediate solution, and the Revenue did not prove that it was marketable as manufactured; marketability had to be assessed in that condition, not on possible stabilisation by additives. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the classification dispute did not survive. en-us Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:08:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89512 Maltodextrin was discussed as a product whose duty liability turned on two points: limitation and marketability. The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable where a classification list describing the product and process had been approved and there was no suppression, deliberate misdeclaration, or mismatch between declared and actual manufacture. On excisability, the product was treated as an unstable intermediate solution, and the Revenue did not prove that it was marketable as manufactured; marketability had to be assessed in that condition, not on possible stabilisation by additives. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the classification dispute did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89512