https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379724 The Tribunal upheld the use of CAS-4 method for determining assessable value and excise duty, setting aside penalties and limiting demands to the normal period of limitation. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, emphasizing the justification for applying CAS-4 method due to historical confusion. The appellant's challenges regarding limitation periods and penalties were accepted, with penalties being set aside for being unwarranted. The production of CAS-4 certificate was deemed sufficient for determining correct assessable value and duty, leading to a remand for re-quantification of demands within the normal limitation period. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 May 2019 07:14:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379724 The Tribunal upheld the use of CAS-4 method for determining assessable value and excise duty, setting aside penalties and limiting demands to the normal period of limitation. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, emphasizing the justification for applying CAS-4 method due to historical confusion. The appellant's challenges regarding limitation periods and penalties were accepted, with penalties being set aside for being unwarranted. The production of CAS-4 certificate was deemed sufficient for determining correct assessable value and duty, leading to a remand for re-quantification of demands within the normal limitation period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379724