https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117009 The duty demand and penalty imposition based on the inclusion of "financial cost" in the assessable value were challenged in this case. The appellant contended that financial cost was distinct from interest and should not be part of the assessable value. The court found that the financial cost was related to interest for delayed payments and should not be included in the assessable value at the time of goods removal. Relying on a Supreme Court decision and the evidence presented, the duty demand was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:23:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117009 The duty demand and penalty imposition based on the inclusion of "financial cost" in the assessable value were challenged in this case. The appellant contended that financial cost was distinct from interest and should not be part of the assessable value. The court found that the financial cost was related to interest for delayed payments and should not be included in the assessable value at the time of goods removal. Relying on a Supreme Court decision and the evidence presented, the duty demand was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117009