https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88641 The Court upheld duty payment for design and engineering charges listed in separate debit notes for Electric Overhead Travelling Cranes, considering them integral to assessable value. It differentiated these charges from transportation, installation, and commissioning fees, which were deemed separate services not affecting duty liability. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on a notification allowing duty exemption beyond invoice prices, emphasizing that assessable value must align with invoice prices to prevent underreporting. The Court also upheld the larger limitation period for issuing show cause notices due to alleged suppression of facts, directing a reduction in the demand for charges unrelated to design and engineering. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with a reassessment of duty and penalty amounts. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:05:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88641 The Court upheld duty payment for design and engineering charges listed in separate debit notes for Electric Overhead Travelling Cranes, considering them integral to assessable value. It differentiated these charges from transportation, installation, and commissioning fees, which were deemed separate services not affecting duty liability. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on a notification allowing duty exemption beyond invoice prices, emphasizing that assessable value must align with invoice prices to prevent underreporting. The Court also upheld the larger limitation period for issuing show cause notices due to alleged suppression of facts, directing a reduction in the demand for charges unrelated to design and engineering. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with a reassessment of duty and penalty amounts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88641