https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380288 The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Bombay Engineering Industries, holding that the 10% amount recovered from customers did not constitute a cum-duty price in the invoices. The show-cause notice was set aside as barred by limitation, as the demand was minimal and the appellants had been compliant with filing returns. The decision highlighted the difference between tax and price collection, ultimately siding with the appellants due to procedural constraints and the character of the disputed sum. en-us Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2019 05:48:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380288 The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Bombay Engineering Industries, holding that the 10% amount recovered from customers did not constitute a cum-duty price in the invoices. The show-cause notice was set aside as barred by limitation, as the demand was minimal and the appellants had been compliant with filing returns. The decision highlighted the difference between tax and price collection, ultimately siding with the appellants due to procedural constraints and the character of the disputed sum. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380288