https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41218 Bagasse was treated as a distinct manufactured product with separate name, character and use, so it was not intermediate goods or a component part of other goods produced in the factory. On that basis, the concessional benefit under Notification No. 77/75 was unavailable and duty was payable under Notification No. 118/75, supporting the Revenue's view on dutiability. The time-bar objection also failed because no approval by the proper officer was established to treat bagasse as non-excisable. The Assistant Collector's determination on dutiability was therefore affirmed and the order-in-appeal modified accordingly. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 May 2010 13:22:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41218 Bagasse was treated as a distinct manufactured product with separate name, character and use, so it was not intermediate goods or a component part of other goods produced in the factory. On that basis, the concessional benefit under Notification No. 77/75 was unavailable and duty was payable under Notification No. 118/75, supporting the Revenue's view on dutiability. The time-bar objection also failed because no approval by the proper officer was established to treat bagasse as non-excisable. The Assistant Collector's determination on dutiability was therefore affirmed and the order-in-appeal modified accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41218