https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370473 The Tribunal upheld demands confirmed within the limitation period, clarifying the correct interpretation of Rule 8 for captively consumed Iron and Steel products. It differentiated between production for other articles and civil construction, rejecting the appellant's application of Rule 8. The decision emphasized compliance with Central Excise Valuation Rules, setting aside extended period demands due to lack of intent to evade duty and highlighting the importance of consistent returns. The judgment provided clarity on valuation methods, extended period invocation, and best judgment approach for similar cases. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370473 The Tribunal upheld demands confirmed within the limitation period, clarifying the correct interpretation of Rule 8 for captively consumed Iron and Steel products. It differentiated between production for other articles and civil construction, rejecting the appellant's application of Rule 8. The decision emphasized compliance with Central Excise Valuation Rules, setting aside extended period demands due to lack of intent to evade duty and highlighting the importance of consistent returns. The judgment provided clarity on valuation methods, extended period invocation, and best judgment approach for similar cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370473