https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42198 Forged steel products remained liable under Item 26AA(ia) on the weight of the finished forged goods after machining and polishing, because removal of excess skin was incidental to manufacture rather than a stage requiring pre-machining valuation. Machining and polishing by the appellant did not create a new dutiable commercial commodity under Item 68 for the non-composite goods, as the evidence showed further processing was still required before the railway could use the products. For composite units, the extended limitation period was unavailable in the absence of suppression or fraud, so the demand was confined to the normal six-month period prior to notice. en-us Fri, 06 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42198 Forged steel products remained liable under Item 26AA(ia) on the weight of the finished forged goods after machining and polishing, because removal of excess skin was incidental to manufacture rather than a stage requiring pre-machining valuation. Machining and polishing by the appellant did not create a new dutiable commercial commodity under Item 68 for the non-composite goods, as the evidence showed further processing was still required before the railway could use the products. For composite units, the extended limitation period was unavailable in the absence of suppression or fraud, so the demand was confined to the normal six-month period prior to notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42198