https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90377 Captive use of dished ends within the factory did not remove them from the excise charge, as a finished excisable product remained dutiable on manufacture and internal removal under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 75/67 failed because there was no proof that the inputs had suffered duty. The record also supported invocation of the extended limitation period where manufacture and classification had not been properly disclosed. On the separate limitation issue in the first appeal, the appeal memo was shown to be timely, the earlier appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:56:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90377 Captive use of dished ends within the factory did not remove them from the excise charge, as a finished excisable product remained dutiable on manufacture and internal removal under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claimed exemption under Notification No. 75/67 failed because there was no proof that the inputs had suffered duty. The record also supported invocation of the extended limitation period where manufacture and classification had not been properly disclosed. On the separate limitation issue in the first appeal, the appeal memo was shown to be timely, the earlier appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90377