https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84477 In central excise valuation, a lower price charged to one customer did not by itself justify re-determination where the differential pricing was already known to the Department and assessments had been finalised without objection. The Tribunal declined remand for re-quantification of duty or fresh valuation on merits. On limitation, it held that the extended period could be invoked only on proof of suppression with intent to evade duty; since the pricing basis and assessments were within departmental knowledge and no concealment was shown, the demand beyond six months was time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) order was sustained. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:55:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84477 In central excise valuation, a lower price charged to one customer did not by itself justify re-determination where the differential pricing was already known to the Department and assessments had been finalised without objection. The Tribunal declined remand for re-quantification of duty or fresh valuation on merits. On limitation, it held that the extended period could be invoked only on proof of suppression with intent to evade duty; since the pricing basis and assessments were within departmental knowledge and no concealment was shown, the demand beyond six months was time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84477