https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235858 CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee manufacturing MS tanks and radiators for transformers. The appellant had paid duty on prices below the required 110%/115% of production cost under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules during 2002-2006. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) was not invokable due to jurisdictional officers' failure to scrutinize returns despite clear documentation showing inter-unit transfers. Additionally, since the entire duty was available as Cenvat credit to the same ownership group, creating a revenue-neutral situation, no intent to evade duty existed. The demand was time-barred. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 May 2025 12:27:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235858 CESTAT New Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee manufacturing MS tanks and radiators for transformers. The appellant had paid duty on prices below the required 110%/115% of production cost under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules during 2002-2006. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) was not invokable due to jurisdictional officers' failure to scrutinize returns despite clear documentation showing inter-unit transfers. Additionally, since the entire duty was available as Cenvat credit to the same ownership group, creating a revenue-neutral situation, no intent to evade duty existed. The demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235858