https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116641 Intermediate sugar syrup was treated as not marketable on the record, so it was not excisable merely because it emerged during manufacture. The absence of proof of marketability was decisive. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because wilful suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, particularly where the excisability of sugar syrup had itself been controversial and subject to departmental circulars. The assessee therefore retained relief on both the merits of excisability and the limitation objection. en-us Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Apr 2024 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116641 Intermediate sugar syrup was treated as not marketable on the record, so it was not excisable merely because it emerged during manufacture. The absence of proof of marketability was decisive. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because wilful suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, particularly where the excisability of sugar syrup had itself been controversial and subject to departmental circulars. The assessee therefore retained relief on both the merits of excisability and the limitation objection. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116641