https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113986 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and penalty. It held that negotiated prices could be considered under Rule 6(b)(i) for valuing captively consumed goods. The extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) was deemed inapplicable as there was no suppression of facts by the appellants, who had informed authorities of their valuation method switch. The demand for duty was considered time-barred, leading to the dismissal of both duty demand and penalty. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2012 16:13:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113986 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and penalty. It held that negotiated prices could be considered under Rule 6(b)(i) for valuing captively consumed goods. The extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) was deemed inapplicable as there was no suppression of facts by the appellants, who had informed authorities of their valuation method switch. The demand for duty was considered time-barred, leading to the dismissal of both duty demand and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113986