https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85634 A bought-out cable gland used with flame-proof electrical fittings was treated as an optional accessory, not an integral component, so its value could not be added to the assessable value of the fittings merely because it was sold with them. On limitation, the absence of any mention of the cable gland in the classification list and the lack of prior departmental knowledge supported invocation of the extended period for suppression of facts under the Central Excise law. The note therefore records that the valuation objection succeeded on merits, while the limitation challenge failed. en-us Tue, 07 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:46:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85634 A bought-out cable gland used with flame-proof electrical fittings was treated as an optional accessory, not an integral component, so its value could not be added to the assessable value of the fittings merely because it was sold with them. On limitation, the absence of any mention of the cable gland in the classification list and the lack of prior departmental knowledge supported invocation of the extended period for suppression of facts under the Central Excise law. The note therefore records that the valuation objection succeeded on merits, while the limitation challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85634