https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166000 Cushion compound captively consumed in the same factory for manufacture of tread rubber with cushion backing was treated as separately dutiable under Tariff Item 16A(2), because the product had already been held to fall within that item and a retrospective amendment deemed such goods to be removed immediately before internal consumption. The contention that it was only an intermediate product not liable to duty therefore failed. The demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also sustained, as that rule then carried no built-in limitation and Rule 10, which dealt with short levy, did not apply to a case of non-levy. en-us Fri, 11 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:45:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166000 Cushion compound captively consumed in the same factory for manufacture of tread rubber with cushion backing was treated as separately dutiable under Tariff Item 16A(2), because the product had already been held to fall within that item and a retrospective amendment deemed such goods to be removed immediately before internal consumption. The contention that it was only an intermediate product not liable to duty therefore failed. The demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also sustained, as that rule then carried no built-in limitation and Rule 10, which dealt with short levy, did not apply to a case of non-levy. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166000