https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354705 Amounts collected as design and drawing charges for pipes sold to the buyer were held to have a direct nexus with the sale and to fall within transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the differential duty demand was sustained. Penalty, however, was not maintainable because the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretational issue and the record did not establish suppression of facts, so the penalty was deleted. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:23:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354705 Amounts collected as design and drawing charges for pipes sold to the buyer were held to have a direct nexus with the sale and to fall within transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the differential duty demand was sustained. Penalty, however, was not maintainable because the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretational issue and the record did not establish suppression of facts, so the penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354705