https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190290 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the appellant and STIC were not related persons under the Central Excise Act. It upheld the appellant's argument on the correct transaction value, emphasizing good faith actions and absence of extra consideration. The demand for excise duty was deemed time-barred as disclosed in audited balance sheets without mala fide intention. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not have mala fide intentions in evading excise duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:37:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190290 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the appellant and STIC were not related persons under the Central Excise Act. It upheld the appellant's argument on the correct transaction value, emphasizing good faith actions and absence of extra consideration. The demand for excise duty was deemed time-barred as disclosed in audited balance sheets without mala fide intention. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not have mala fide intentions in evading excise duty payment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190290