https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364690 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the valuation of wall putty, finding they were not a job worker for Asian Paints Ltd. The extended period of limitation was not applicable as there was no willful misstatement, and penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, were set aside due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties on the appellant's officers were also overturned. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364690 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the valuation of wall putty, finding they were not a job worker for Asian Paints Ltd. The extended period of limitation was not applicable as there was no willful misstatement, and penalties imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, were set aside due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties on the appellant's officers were also overturned. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364690