https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108477 Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) applied where an assessee filing declarations under rule 173C had wilfully suppressed material facts; absence of departmental approval did not prevent invocation of suppression-based limitation. For captively consumed engines, valuation had to follow the nearest ascertainable comparable sale price under the valuation rules, including genuine subsequent factory-gate sales to independent buyers, with reasonable adjustment if needed. Rule 6(b)(ii) cost-of-production valuation was available only if no such comparable value could be determined. The cost-based demand was therefore rejected, while the extended limitation point was upheld. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:44:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108477 Extended limitation under the proviso to section 11A(1) applied where an assessee filing declarations under rule 173C had wilfully suppressed material facts; absence of departmental approval did not prevent invocation of suppression-based limitation. For captively consumed engines, valuation had to follow the nearest ascertainable comparable sale price under the valuation rules, including genuine subsequent factory-gate sales to independent buyers, with reasonable adjustment if needed. Rule 6(b)(ii) cost-of-production valuation was available only if no such comparable value could be determined. The cost-based demand was therefore rejected, while the extended limitation point was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108477