https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329700 The Tribunal held that M/s BDIL was required to pay duty at the contracted price for goods supplied to government hospitals, rejecting the argument to calculate duty based on the transaction value with M/s Anupam. M/s Anupam was deemed a facilitating agency, not an independent distributor, limiting their role to recovering payments from government agencies. The Tribunal justified the extended period of limitation due to the deliberate evasion of duty. The Revenue's appeal under Section 11D was dismissed as the differential amount collected was not solely excise duty, and duty had been paid correctly at clearance. All appeals were rejected. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329700 The Tribunal held that M/s BDIL was required to pay duty at the contracted price for goods supplied to government hospitals, rejecting the argument to calculate duty based on the transaction value with M/s Anupam. M/s Anupam was deemed a facilitating agency, not an independent distributor, limiting their role to recovering payments from government agencies. The Tribunal justified the extended period of limitation due to the deliberate evasion of duty. The Revenue's appeal under Section 11D was dismissed as the differential amount collected was not solely excise duty, and duty had been paid correctly at clearance. All appeals were rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329700