https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88085 After-sales service charges collected over and above the declared price were not supported by adequate material showing that second-year service was truly optional, so the demand could not be dropped on merits without further proof. The declaration that first-year service was free did not disclose the alleged factual position that second-year service was offered only as an option for a charge, so the finding that the extended limitation period was unavailable was made without proper consideration of the relevant facts. The order dropping the demand was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the respondent and allowing necessary documents. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:47:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88085 After-sales service charges collected over and above the declared price were not supported by adequate material showing that second-year service was truly optional, so the demand could not be dropped on merits without further proof. The declaration that first-year service was free did not disclose the alleged factual position that second-year service was offered only as an option for a charge, so the finding that the extended limitation period was unavailable was made without proper consideration of the relevant facts. The order dropping the demand was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the respondent and allowing necessary documents. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88085