https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87308 Contracted sales and additional sales to the same buyer were treated as separate commercial transactions, so the negotiated price for contracted quantities did not require all clearances to be valued at a single higher assessable value; duty applied on the respective transaction values, and the valuation objection failed. The demand for March 1985 was time-barred because the Department had been given the relevant contracts and particulars, there was no suppression of facts, and no material showed intent to evade duty; the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee obtained complete relief. en-us Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:43:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87308 Contracted sales and additional sales to the same buyer were treated as separate commercial transactions, so the negotiated price for contracted quantities did not require all clearances to be valued at a single higher assessable value; duty applied on the respective transaction values, and the valuation objection failed. The demand for March 1985 was time-barred because the Department had been given the relevant contracts and particulars, there was no suppression of facts, and no material showed intent to evade duty; the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee obtained complete relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87308