https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338613 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh order. The appellant's argument that the demand notice was time-barred due to the audit report being issued beyond one year was considered. It was found that the inclusion of amortisation cost in the value of manufactured parts was not applicable in the scenario where job work was conducted under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to the remand for a fresh order addressing this aspect. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338613 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh order. The appellant's argument that the demand notice was time-barred due to the audit report being issued beyond one year was considered. It was found that the inclusion of amortisation cost in the value of manufactured parts was not applicable in the scenario where job work was conducted under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to the remand for a fresh order addressing this aspect. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338613