1998 (12) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - In this case a differential duty demand of Rs. 3,20,319.11 has been confirmed on testing charges recovered from customers during the period from 15-12-1983 to 7-9-1986 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the appellants, who are manufac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... form part of assessable value of the transmission line towers. However, in the same order, the Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Deptt since the Audit parties of the Accountant General were periodically visiting the appellants' factory and the appellants have stated that Central Excise Officers were also paying periodic visits to the factory for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X