https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362086 The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that their sales to PSSTL and BAI were not to "Related Persons" under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, as evidence showed they were interconnected undertakings. However, the Tribunal found the extended period for demanding duty unjustified under Section 11A(1) and 11A(4), as there was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalty for the extended period, directing a recalculation for the period within the one-year limitation. en-us Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:27:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362086 The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that their sales to PSSTL and BAI were not to "Related Persons" under Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, as evidence showed they were interconnected undertakings. However, the Tribunal found the extended period for demanding duty unjustified under Section 11A(1) and 11A(4), as there was no evidence of suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalty for the extended period, directing a recalculation for the period within the one-year limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362086