https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=803 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on the valuation of "Epichlorohydrin" supplied to a related company, ruling that the parties were related under the Central Excise Act. It rejected the assessee's challenge against the adoption of the cost of production for valuation, affirming the Commissioner's decision. The penalty under Rule 25 was set aside due to no violations found, but the interest demand under Section 11AB was upheld. The Tribunal modified the order, setting aside the penalty and affirming the interest demand, with the decision issued on 11.07.2006. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=803 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on the valuation of "Epichlorohydrin" supplied to a related company, ruling that the parties were related under the Central Excise Act. It rejected the assessee's challenge against the adoption of the cost of production for valuation, affirming the Commissioner's decision. The penalty under Rule 25 was set aside due to no violations found, but the interest demand under Section 11AB was upheld. The Tribunal modified the order, setting aside the penalty and affirming the interest demand, with the decision issued on 11.07.2006. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=803