https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41037 Revision under Section 36(2) was treated as timely because the one-year period ran from communication of the appellate order, and the notice issued on 6 September 1978 fell within time. The challenge to the revised price list and differential duty demand on grounds of retrospectivity and lack of hearing also failed, because the earlier hearing defect had been cured on remand and the demand was confined to the permissible period. The Assistant Collector could consider fresh valuation points on de novo remand after notice and opportunity. Post-manufacturing charges were included in assessable value under Section 4 because the assessee produced no material proving actual expenditure or separability from the factory-gate price. en-us Sat, 05 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 May 2010 12:11:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41037 Revision under Section 36(2) was treated as timely because the one-year period ran from communication of the appellate order, and the notice issued on 6 September 1978 fell within time. The challenge to the revised price list and differential duty demand on grounds of retrospectivity and lack of hearing also failed, because the earlier hearing defect had been cured on remand and the demand was confined to the permissible period. The Assistant Collector could consider fresh valuation points on de novo remand after notice and opportunity. Post-manufacturing charges were included in assessable value under Section 4 because the assessee produced no material proving actual expenditure or separability from the factory-gate price. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 05 Dec 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41037