https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126842 The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the appeal. The appeal challenged duty demands on contracted products, questioning the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to demand duty at the customer's premises and the pecuniary jurisdiction limit of cases exceeding Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The duty demand was based on discrepancies in assessable value, interest considerations, and the CKD concept. As the product emerged at the customer's premises, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to raise or adjudicate on the duty demand, leading to the appeal's success on jurisdictional grounds. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:56:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126842 The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the appeal. The appeal challenged duty demands on contracted products, questioning the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to demand duty at the customer's premises and the pecuniary jurisdiction limit of cases exceeding Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The duty demand was based on discrepancies in assessable value, interest considerations, and the CKD concept. As the product emerged at the customer's premises, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to raise or adjudicate on the duty demand, leading to the appeal's success on jurisdictional grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126842