https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50328 Design and engineering charges under a contract were examined for inclusion in assessable value, with the analysis distinguishing between drawings linked to civil construction and those tied to equipment manufacture. Charges attributable to engineering and design of the supplied equipment were treated as includible, while an undifferentiated levy on the entire aggregate was not accepted without proper contractual breakup. Non-disclosure of the charges in the relevant returns supported invocation of the extended limitation period. Because duty had been computed without separating the distinct contractual components, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration and fresh quantification on the correct basis. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50328 Design and engineering charges under a contract were examined for inclusion in assessable value, with the analysis distinguishing between drawings linked to civil construction and those tied to equipment manufacture. Charges attributable to engineering and design of the supplied equipment were treated as includible, while an undifferentiated levy on the entire aggregate was not accepted without proper contractual breakup. Non-disclosure of the charges in the relevant returns supported invocation of the extended limitation period. Because duty had been computed without separating the distinct contractual components, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration and fresh quantification on the correct basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50328