https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202056 Refund under Notification No. 56/02-C.E. was treated as confined to duty actually payable and paid through PLA, not to any excess duty beyond the lawful liability. On the facts noted, the sales appeared to be at the factory gate, while freight and insurance were separately charged, so the appellant had not shown that those expenses formed part of the assessable value. The absence of prior disclosure of the valuation method in the returns also supported prima facie invocation of the extended limitation period. In that setting, complete waiver of pre-deposit was not justified and only conditional protection against recovery of the balance was available. en-us Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202056 Refund under Notification No. 56/02-C.E. was treated as confined to duty actually payable and paid through PLA, not to any excess duty beyond the lawful liability. On the facts noted, the sales appeared to be at the factory gate, while freight and insurance were separately charged, so the appellant had not shown that those expenses formed part of the assessable value. The absence of prior disclosure of the valuation method in the returns also supported prima facie invocation of the extended limitation period. In that setting, complete waiver of pre-deposit was not justified and only conditional protection against recovery of the balance was available. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202056