https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213291 The appellate tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The tribunal found that the appellant had collected extra amounts in the name of Majuri and Octroi, which were not included in the assessable value, leading to a differential duty demand. Regarding labour charges, the tribunal agreed with the appellant that these charges, collected for optional unloading services, should not be included in the assessable value. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant could present their case properly and withheld any opinion on the merits, setting aside the impugned order and instructing the appellant not to claim a refund until the issue is finalized. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 May 2012 06:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213291 The appellate tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The tribunal found that the appellant had collected extra amounts in the name of Majuri and Octroi, which were not included in the assessable value, leading to a differential duty demand. Regarding labour charges, the tribunal agreed with the appellant that these charges, collected for optional unloading services, should not be included in the assessable value. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant could present their case properly and withheld any opinion on the merits, setting aside the impugned order and instructing the appellant not to claim a refund until the issue is finalized. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213291