https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347160 CAS-4 costing, introduced by a later CBEC circular for captive-consumption valuation, was treated as applicable to a pending dispute arising from an earlier period because the matter remained unresolved and the standardized method was viewed as more scientific and beneficial. Excess duty paid on other clearances, arising from the same valuation exercise, could be adjusted against the disputed demand where no refund was sought and the facts justified set-off. Penalty under Rule 173Q was held unsustainable because the dispute concerned valuation methodology only, with no established suppression, fraud, or collusion. en-us Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347160 CAS-4 costing, introduced by a later CBEC circular for captive-consumption valuation, was treated as applicable to a pending dispute arising from an earlier period because the matter remained unresolved and the standardized method was viewed as more scientific and beneficial. Excess duty paid on other clearances, arising from the same valuation exercise, could be adjusted against the disputed demand where no refund was sought and the facts justified set-off. Penalty under Rule 173Q was held unsustainable because the dispute concerned valuation methodology only, with no established suppression, fraud, or collusion. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347160