https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3357 False declaration in classification papers that a brand name belonged to the assessee, when it in fact belonged to a foreign collaborator, amounts to wilful mis-statement and suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty; the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act was therefore held to be available. On valuation, where the sale price is treated as cum-duty price, the duty element must be excluded while determining assessable value, and the re-determination of duty on that basis was upheld. Both the limitation objection and the valuation challenge were thus rejected in substance. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3357 False declaration in classification papers that a brand name belonged to the assessee, when it in fact belonged to a foreign collaborator, amounts to wilful mis-statement and suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty; the extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act was therefore held to be available. On valuation, where the sale price is treated as cum-duty price, the duty element must be excluded while determining assessable value, and the re-determination of duty on that basis was upheld. Both the limitation objection and the valuation challenge were thus rejected in substance. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3357