https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108244 Absence of suppression or misstatement prevented invocation of the extended limitation period for the pre-1-7-2000 demand, because the marketing arrangements had been disclosed to the Department and the earlier demand was therefore time-barred. For the post-1-7-2000 period, valuation under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 required fresh examination of whether forwarding charges, freight, insurance and related transportation costs were deductible from assessable value, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Interest and penalty linked to that later period were set aside pending fresh adjudication. en-us Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:55:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108244 Absence of suppression or misstatement prevented invocation of the extended limitation period for the pre-1-7-2000 demand, because the marketing arrangements had been disclosed to the Department and the earlier demand was therefore time-barred. For the post-1-7-2000 period, valuation under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 required fresh examination of whether forwarding charges, freight, insurance and related transportation costs were deductible from assessable value, so the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Interest and penalty linked to that later period were set aside pending fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108244