Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand. The Tribunal held the extended period of limitation could not sustain the demand for the period 01.05.2003-30.09.2004 in light of controlling SC precedent, rendering confirmation under the extended period untenable. Further, the adjudication erroneously applied Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules by treating oil marketing companies as 'related persons' without recording requisite findings under s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Rule 10 requires valuation as if not related unless those statutory relationships are established. For these reasons the demand lacked legal foundation and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
