https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86306 Production of a contract did not, by itself, show that the department was aware of the exclusion of advertisement charges from the assessable price. On the record, the separate payment and non-disclosure of that exclusion amounted to suppression, so the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked. The penalty was also re-examined in light of the duty demand and surrounding circumstances, and its quantum was moderated in the interests of justice. The appeal therefore failed on the demand and limitation issue, while the penalty was reduced. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:12:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86306 Production of a contract did not, by itself, show that the department was aware of the exclusion of advertisement charges from the assessable price. On the record, the separate payment and non-disclosure of that exclusion amounted to suppression, so the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked. The penalty was also re-examined in light of the duty demand and surrounding circumstances, and its quantum was moderated in the interests of justice. The appeal therefore failed on the demand and limitation issue, while the penalty was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86306