https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119468 A fixed-price contract prevented the alleged 10% buyer subsidy from being treated as additional consideration for central excise valuation, because the amount was neither actually received from the buyer nor contractually payable. It was therefore not includible in the assessable value of the jack-up rig. Since no duty was payable on that component, the extended period of limitation for the differential duty demand did not arise and was not attracted. The demand and penalty were unsustainable to the extent challenged. en-us Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:42:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119468 A fixed-price contract prevented the alleged 10% buyer subsidy from being treated as additional consideration for central excise valuation, because the amount was neither actually received from the buyer nor contractually payable. It was therefore not includible in the assessable value of the jack-up rig. Since no duty was payable on that component, the extended period of limitation for the differential duty demand did not arise and was not attracted. The demand and penalty were unsustainable to the extent challenged. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119468