https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359118 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order demanding differential duty, interest, and penalty. The decision was based on the appellant's argument that the value of materials supplied free of cost need not be included in the assessable value for duty calculation, citing relevant legal precedents supporting their position. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, applying the ratio from previous cases like International Auto and Jay Yuhshin Ltd., which affirmed the appellant's entitlement to avail CENVAT credit on FOC materials. en-us Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359118 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order demanding differential duty, interest, and penalty. The decision was based on the appellant's argument that the value of materials supplied free of cost need not be included in the assessable value for duty calculation, citing relevant legal precedents supporting their position. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, applying the ratio from previous cases like International Auto and Jay Yuhshin Ltd., which affirmed the appellant's entitlement to avail CENVAT credit on FOC materials. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359118