https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469 The dispute concerned cum-duty valuation, but the Court confined itself to the only ground raised in appeal: that the earlier valuation decision was under review. It noted that the appellate authority had already treated the sale price as cum-duty price and reduced the assessable value, while the department had not raised the separate factual contention that cum-duty treatment was inapplicable on the facts. As that contention was outside the grounds of appeal, the Court declined to examine the factual merits and left the dismissal of the department's appeal undisturbed. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469 The dispute concerned cum-duty valuation, but the Court confined itself to the only ground raised in appeal: that the earlier valuation decision was under review. It noted that the appellate authority had already treated the sale price as cum-duty price and reduced the assessable value, while the department had not raised the separate factual contention that cum-duty treatment was inapplicable on the facts. As that contention was outside the grounds of appeal, the Court declined to examine the factual merits and left the dismissal of the department's appeal undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469