https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89778 The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty due to mis-statements and suppression of facts despite provisional assessment. The demand for differential duty on two perma towers was set aside as it was based on under-valuation not raised in the notice. Deductions for excise duty and freight were allowed for demands on perma towers, and penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 1.00 lakh. The appeal resulted in setting aside one demand, re-quantification of two demands, confirmation of one demand, and reduction of penalty. en-us Thu, 14 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:25:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89778 The Tribunal upheld the demand for duty due to mis-statements and suppression of facts despite provisional assessment. The demand for differential duty on two perma towers was set aside as it was based on under-valuation not raised in the notice. Deductions for excise duty and freight were allowed for demands on perma towers, and penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 1.00 lakh. The appeal resulted in setting aside one demand, re-quantification of two demands, confirmation of one demand, and reduction of penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89778