https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276887 The Tribunal's cryptic order was found unsustainable because it did not independently examine the material on record or deal with the assessee's evidence on valuation, limitation, and includibility of expenses. The controversy concerned whether head office expenses and research and development expenses formed part of the assessable value of captively consumed goods, and whether extended limitation could be invoked. As the final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was expected to consider the documents and apply its mind to the merits rather than reject the assessee's case summarily. The order was quashed and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:34:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276887 The Tribunal's cryptic order was found unsustainable because it did not independently examine the material on record or deal with the assessee's evidence on valuation, limitation, and includibility of expenses. The controversy concerned whether head office expenses and research and development expenses formed part of the assessable value of captively consumed goods, and whether extended limitation could be invoked. As the final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was expected to consider the documents and apply its mind to the merits rather than reject the assessee's case summarily. The order was quashed and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276887