CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand. The...

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.