https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112682 Cross-objections against an adjudication order were treated as maintainable because an application under Section 35E(4) was to be regarded as an appeal for all purposes and Section 35B(4) allowed respondent cross-objections. On excise classification, O.B.M. Oil retained its essential character as groundnut oil despite colouring matter and marketing as massage oil, so it remained under Tariff Item 12 and was not dutiable. E. Oil, being a mixed preparation with vitamin E and other ingredients, was properly classified as a preparation for skin care under Tariff Item 14F(1). The extended limitation period was unavailable absent suppression or deliberate evasion where the Department already knew the manufacturing facts, and penalty was not justified. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 12:44:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112682 Cross-objections against an adjudication order were treated as maintainable because an application under Section 35E(4) was to be regarded as an appeal for all purposes and Section 35B(4) allowed respondent cross-objections. On excise classification, O.B.M. Oil retained its essential character as groundnut oil despite colouring matter and marketing as massage oil, so it remained under Tariff Item 12 and was not dutiable. E. Oil, being a mixed preparation with vitamin E and other ingredients, was properly classified as a preparation for skin care under Tariff Item 14F(1). The extended limitation period was unavailable absent suppression or deliberate evasion where the Department already knew the manufacturing facts, and penalty was not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112682