https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83147 Exempted goods remained excisable for computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., so the manufacturer could not claim the small-scale exemption after crossing the prescribed threshold; parts of weigh bridges were also includible in the aggregate. Packing and handling charges, supervision and erection charges, cancelled bills, and duty-paid components were not proved deductible from the clearance value. The demand was held within limitation because the declaration disclosed the clearances and notice issued within six months. The duty demand did not survive against the seized goods, which stood released. Penalty was sustainable in principle, but it was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:48:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83147 Exempted goods remained excisable for computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., so the manufacturer could not claim the small-scale exemption after crossing the prescribed threshold; parts of weigh bridges were also includible in the aggregate. Packing and handling charges, supervision and erection charges, cancelled bills, and duty-paid components were not proved deductible from the clearance value. The demand was held within limitation because the declaration disclosed the clearances and notice issued within six months. The duty demand did not survive against the seized goods, which stood released. Penalty was sustainable in principle, but it was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83147