https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271438 The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable as the appellant had disclosed their valuation method within the normal limitation period. The appellant was found liable to pay duty as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside as the dispute was related to the interpretation of valuation rules, and the appellant had disclosed their method of valuation to the Department. The appeal resulted in the confirmation of the demand for the normal period of limitation with interest, setting aside the demand beyond the normal period, and the penalty. en-us Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271438 The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable as the appellant had disclosed their valuation method within the normal limitation period. The appellant was found liable to pay duty as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside as the dispute was related to the interpretation of valuation rules, and the appellant had disclosed their method of valuation to the Department. The appeal resulted in the confirmation of the demand for the normal period of limitation with interest, setting aside the demand beyond the normal period, and the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271438