https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103533 The tribunal upheld the duty demand resulting from the rejection of the abatement claim for expenditure on freight and insurance, citing the delivery location as crucial in determining assessable value. While no prima facie case was found for abatement of freight and insurance expenses, the possibility of abatement for additional packing expenses remained unclear. The appellant was directed to make specified pre-deposits within eight weeks to stay recovery during the appeal process, with non-compliance leading to dismissal of the appeals. Compliance reporting was mandated by a specified date. en-us Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:17:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103533 The tribunal upheld the duty demand resulting from the rejection of the abatement claim for expenditure on freight and insurance, citing the delivery location as crucial in determining assessable value. While no prima facie case was found for abatement of freight and insurance expenses, the possibility of abatement for additional packing expenses remained unclear. The appellant was directed to make specified pre-deposits within eight weeks to stay recovery during the appeal process, with non-compliance leading to dismissal of the appeals. Compliance reporting was mandated by a specified date. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103533