https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47414 Kimam manufactured in the Delhi units was treated as a distinct, identifiable and marketable product used in the manufacture of chewing tobacco, so it was held excisable and classifiable under the relevant tariff sub-headings. On limitation, the extended period under the excise law was found unavailable because prior departmental inspections, stock verification, recorded statements, disclosure of the manufacturing process, and maintained registers and transfer challans showed that the facts were known to the Department; wilful suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. Duty liability was therefore upheld, but the demand for the extended period failed, giving the assessee partial relief. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 22:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47414 Kimam manufactured in the Delhi units was treated as a distinct, identifiable and marketable product used in the manufacture of chewing tobacco, so it was held excisable and classifiable under the relevant tariff sub-headings. On limitation, the extended period under the excise law was found unavailable because prior departmental inspections, stock verification, recorded statements, disclosure of the manufacturing process, and maintained registers and transfer challans showed that the facts were known to the Department; wilful suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. Duty liability was therefore upheld, but the demand for the extended period failed, giving the assessee partial relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47414