https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42103 Complete cranes assembled and tested at the Adityapur unit were treated as excisable goods even though they were later despatched in knocked-down form for erection at the main plant. Exemption under the central excise notification was denied because the goods were not merely components for maintenance, but machinery integral to a production modernisation project, and the notification excluded complete machinery used for production or processing. Suppression and misdescription of the manufacture justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the demand was time-barred? No, it was within time. Penalty and confiscation were also upheld because duty was removed without payment after suppression with intent to evade duty, and the residuary tariff item was held constitutionally valid. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 May 2011 09:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42103 Complete cranes assembled and tested at the Adityapur unit were treated as excisable goods even though they were later despatched in knocked-down form for erection at the main plant. Exemption under the central excise notification was denied because the goods were not merely components for maintenance, but machinery integral to a production modernisation project, and the notification excluded complete machinery used for production or processing. Suppression and misdescription of the manufacture justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the demand was time-barred? No, it was within time. Penalty and confiscation were also upheld because duty was removed without payment after suppression with intent to evade duty, and the residuary tariff item was held constitutionally valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42103