https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267888 Differential excise duty, interest and penalties could not be upheld on the existing record because the valuation basis, the alleged related-person position, and the limitation plea had not been properly examined. The record did not clearly establish whether the split between supply and erection charges reflected actual values or was merely for convenience, nor whether duty already paid had been correctly accounted for. The claim that the assessable value exceeded 115% of cost of production also remained unverified, and the issue of bona fide belief for limitation required scrutiny. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication by the original authority. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267888 Differential excise duty, interest and penalties could not be upheld on the existing record because the valuation basis, the alleged related-person position, and the limitation plea had not been properly examined. The record did not clearly establish whether the split between supply and erection charges reflected actual values or was merely for convenience, nor whether duty already paid had been correctly accounted for. The claim that the assessable value exceeded 115% of cost of production also remained unverified, and the issue of bona fide belief for limitation required scrutiny. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication by the original authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267888