https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286394 The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly paid excise duty on goods supplied to a sister concern based on sale consideration, rather than applying Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules for related parties. Rule 8 was deemed inapplicable as there was no indication of captive consumption of the entire production. Referring to the precedent in Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 8 did not apply in this scenario where goods were sold for consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and disposing of the case in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:08:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286394 The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly paid excise duty on goods supplied to a sister concern based on sale consideration, rather than applying Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules for related parties. Rule 8 was deemed inapplicable as there was no indication of captive consumption of the entire production. Referring to the precedent in Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 8 did not apply in this scenario where goods were sold for consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and disposing of the case in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286394