https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369232 In a wholly revenue-neutral clearance of goods to a sister unit, CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the demand rested only on a revised view of valuation under Rule 8. The corrigendum substantially enlarging the proposed demand was treated as the effective show cause notice, but the record did not support suppression or any other basis for extended limitation. The later amendment to Rule 8, which expressly dealt with partly captive consumption and partly sale, reinforced that the earlier demand could not stand on the same footing. The appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369232 In a wholly revenue-neutral clearance of goods to a sister unit, CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the demand rested only on a revised view of valuation under Rule 8. The corrigendum substantially enlarging the proposed demand was treated as the effective show cause notice, but the record did not support suppression or any other basis for extended limitation. The later amendment to Rule 8, which expressly dealt with partly captive consumption and partly sale, reinforced that the earlier demand could not stand on the same footing. The appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369232