https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73806 Excise valuation was required to be determined on the Supreme Court's factory-gate principle: expenses incurred up to removal and affecting marketability formed part of assessable value, while post-removal expenses were excluded. In remand proceedings, the authorities could apply that binding valuation law. The show cause notice under Section 11A was treated as valid despite non-quantification, because it formed part of a continuing sequence of notices on duty liability. Provisional assessments under Rule 9B meant limitation did not run until final adjustment, so the demand was not time-barred. Special or secondary packing charges and transit insurance were excludible in principle, while contingent liabilities and cum-duty recalculation required factual verification and recomputation. en-us Thu, 28 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:43:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73806 Excise valuation was required to be determined on the Supreme Court's factory-gate principle: expenses incurred up to removal and affecting marketability formed part of assessable value, while post-removal expenses were excluded. In remand proceedings, the authorities could apply that binding valuation law. The show cause notice under Section 11A was treated as valid despite non-quantification, because it formed part of a continuing sequence of notices on duty liability. Provisional assessments under Rule 9B meant limitation did not run until final adjustment, so the demand was not time-barred. Special or secondary packing charges and transit insurance were excludible in principle, while contingent liabilities and cum-duty recalculation required factual verification and recomputation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73806