https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51853 Separate storage and carriage of explosives ingredients in a mobile van did not amount to manufacture under Rule 2(a), because the components remained identifiable duty-paid goods until mixed in prescribed proportions and a new commodity emerged. Prepared explosives produced inside the mines through the mobile van were treated as goods manufactured within the mining workshop and were therefore within Notification No. 63/95-C.E. The extended limitation period could not be invoked without a specific allegation and proof of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, especially where the department was already aware of the relevant facts. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable on merits and on limitation. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:30:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51853 Separate storage and carriage of explosives ingredients in a mobile van did not amount to manufacture under Rule 2(a), because the components remained identifiable duty-paid goods until mixed in prescribed proportions and a new commodity emerged. Prepared explosives produced inside the mines through the mobile van were treated as goods manufactured within the mining workshop and were therefore within Notification No. 63/95-C.E. The extended limitation period could not be invoked without a specific allegation and proof of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, especially where the department was already aware of the relevant facts. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable on merits and on limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51853