https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209194 Differential duty on captively consumed yarn was found time-barred where the assessee had filed price declarations under Rule 173C along with cost-accountant certification, and those particulars were acknowledged by the department. In the absence of any provisional assessment, further query, or clarificatory correspondence from the Revenue, the demand could not be sustained beyond limitation. The valuation dispute arose under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, and the order dropping the demand was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209194 Differential duty on captively consumed yarn was found time-barred where the assessee had filed price declarations under Rule 173C along with cost-accountant certification, and those particulars were acknowledged by the department. In the absence of any provisional assessment, further query, or clarificatory correspondence from the Revenue, the demand could not be sustained beyond limitation. The valuation dispute arose under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, and the order dropping the demand was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209194