https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351161 Suppression was inferred because service charges and royalty charges were not disclosed in the relevant declarations and were furnished only when called for, so the extended period of limitation was held available for the first show cause notice; the second notice was treated as within the normal limitation period, and the limitation objection failed. On manufacture of food flavours, the Tribunal found that the actual process, mixing method and character of the resulting product were not sufficiently examined, so excisability could not be finally determined. The matter was remanded for fresh factual inquiry and, if manufacture is established, reconsideration of valuation and the alleged royalty nexus to assessable value. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351161 Suppression was inferred because service charges and royalty charges were not disclosed in the relevant declarations and were furnished only when called for, so the extended period of limitation was held available for the first show cause notice; the second notice was treated as within the normal limitation period, and the limitation objection failed. On manufacture of food flavours, the Tribunal found that the actual process, mixing method and character of the resulting product were not sufficiently examined, so excisability could not be finally determined. The matter was remanded for fresh factual inquiry and, if manufacture is established, reconsideration of valuation and the alleged royalty nexus to assessable value. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351161