https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201549 Testing equipment fabricated in-house for use within the factory was held dutiable under central excise because the assessee's own records showed manufacture from raw materials and the goods remained marketable; captive consumption and later dismantling did not remove them from the charging provisions. The explanations to Rule 9 and Rule 49 treated such captive use as removal from the premises, so the duty challenge failed. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the assessee had not obtained the required licence and had not disclosed the manufacture, which amounted to suppression of material facts. The duty demand and penalty were sustained. en-us Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201549 Testing equipment fabricated in-house for use within the factory was held dutiable under central excise because the assessee's own records showed manufacture from raw materials and the goods remained marketable; captive consumption and later dismantling did not remove them from the charging provisions. The explanations to Rule 9 and Rule 49 treated such captive use as removal from the premises, so the duty challenge failed. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the assessee had not obtained the required licence and had not disclosed the manufacture, which amounted to suppression of material facts. The duty demand and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201549