https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782227 Central excise duty on alleged repacking of maize starch into 1 kg retail packs cannot be sustained without admissible evidence proving that the repacking actually occurred at the premises during the relevant period. Mere presence of machinery or prior repacking activity was held insufficient, and the record did not establish procurement or use of the relevant packing material or actual manufacture at site. Extended limitation and penalty likewise require proof of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty; in the absence of such evidence, they are not justified. On these facts, the duty demand, extended limitation, and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782227 Central excise duty on alleged repacking of maize starch into 1 kg retail packs cannot be sustained without admissible evidence proving that the repacking actually occurred at the premises during the relevant period. Mere presence of machinery or prior repacking activity was held insufficient, and the record did not establish procurement or use of the relevant packing material or actual manufacture at site. Extended limitation and penalty likewise require proof of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty; in the absence of such evidence, they are not justified. On these facts, the duty demand, extended limitation, and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782227