https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208447 Intermediate copolymer beads were treated as marketable and therefore excisable because the Revenue showed commercial availability of similar goods; captive consumption and crude form did not displace that evidence. The demand was held time-barred because the record showed filed price declarations, audit correspondence, and part-payment of differential duty, but no deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement to justify the extended limitation period. Cancellation of the Rule 57E certificate was unsustainable because the restrictive amendment to Rule 57E(3) took effect only from 01.03.1997 and could not be applied retrospectively to earlier duty-paid clearances, so duty, interest, and penalty could not survive. en-us Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208447 Intermediate copolymer beads were treated as marketable and therefore excisable because the Revenue showed commercial availability of similar goods; captive consumption and crude form did not displace that evidence. The demand was held time-barred because the record showed filed price declarations, audit correspondence, and part-payment of differential duty, but no deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement to justify the extended limitation period. Cancellation of the Rule 57E certificate was unsustainable because the restrictive amendment to Rule 57E(3) took effect only from 01.03.1997 and could not be applied retrospectively to earlier duty-paid clearances, so duty, interest, and penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208447