https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273804 The dispute concerned whether the adjudicating authority committed any irregularity by giving effect to an earlier common order that had already decided the includibility of drawing and design cost in assessable value and had limited the demand to the normal limitation period on the basis that there was no suppression or misstatement. The subsequent orders were found to be consistent with those directions, and no separate infirmity in the impugned orders was established. The challenge therefore failed, and the appeals were dismissed. en-us Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:05:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273804 The dispute concerned whether the adjudicating authority committed any irregularity by giving effect to an earlier common order that had already decided the includibility of drawing and design cost in assessable value and had limited the demand to the normal limitation period on the basis that there was no suppression or misstatement. The subsequent orders were found to be consistent with those directions, and no separate infirmity in the impugned orders was established. The challenge therefore failed, and the appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273804