https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259227 Goods cleared for captive consumption were held not comparable with factory-gate sales, so valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 was upheld rather than the declared price under Rule 6(b)(i). At the same time, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was found unjustified because the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, the earlier price list had been accepted, the position was revenue neutral, and there was no mala fide intent to evade duty. The penalty was therefore set aside, and only the demand within time survived. en-us Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:24:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259227 Goods cleared for captive consumption were held not comparable with factory-gate sales, so valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 was upheld rather than the declared price under Rule 6(b)(i). At the same time, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was found unjustified because the assessee acted under a bona fide belief, the earlier price list had been accepted, the position was revenue neutral, and there was no mala fide intent to evade duty. The penalty was therefore set aside, and only the demand within time survived. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259227