https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182194 Non-disclosure of the actual use of inputs and failure to file the relevant classification list justified invocation of the extended period of limitation, because the Revenue was not put on notice of the material facts despite permission for controlled movement of aluminium ingots under the excise rules. The Tribunal's finding that the goods were marketable was treated as a factual determination and no infirmity was shown in that finding. The Tribunal's acceptance of marketability and extended limitation was upheld, and the challenge to the demand failed. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 May 2016 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182194 Non-disclosure of the actual use of inputs and failure to file the relevant classification list justified invocation of the extended period of limitation, because the Revenue was not put on notice of the material facts despite permission for controlled movement of aluminium ingots under the excise rules. The Tribunal's finding that the goods were marketable was treated as a factual determination and no infirmity was shown in that finding. The Tribunal's acceptance of marketability and extended limitation was upheld, and the challenge to the demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182194