https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96053 Fitting duty-paid crane attachments to a duty-paid shovel did not amount to manufacture because no distinct new excisable commodity emerged, and the absence of tariff classification for any alleged new product reinforced that conclusion. The demand also could not be sustained under the extended limitation period because there was no wilful suppression or intent to evade duty; the demand was lower than the Modvat credit available on the attachments. The appeal accordingly succeeded, and the duty demand, confiscation, and penalty were set aside. en-us Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:21:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96053 Fitting duty-paid crane attachments to a duty-paid shovel did not amount to manufacture because no distinct new excisable commodity emerged, and the absence of tariff classification for any alleged new product reinforced that conclusion. The demand also could not be sustained under the extended limitation period because there was no wilful suppression or intent to evade duty; the demand was lower than the Modvat credit available on the attachments. The appeal accordingly succeeded, and the duty demand, confiscation, and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96053