https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187093 The Tribunal set aside the Order confirming a demand for a differential duty based on the inclusion of bonus and gratuity in the product cost. It held that the extended period for duty demand was not valid as the department was aware of the valuation method through submitted documents. The Tribunal found the lack of specific evidence supporting the allegation of non-inclusion of elements in the cost, leading to the appeal being allowed and the duty payment for the normal period upheld. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:00:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187093 The Tribunal set aside the Order confirming a demand for a differential duty based on the inclusion of bonus and gratuity in the product cost. It held that the extended period for duty demand was not valid as the department was aware of the valuation method through submitted documents. The Tribunal found the lack of specific evidence supporting the allegation of non-inclusion of elements in the cost, leading to the appeal being allowed and the duty payment for the normal period upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187093