https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419361 The Tribunal determined that the assessee and the buyer were inter-connected undertakings but not related persons. Rule 10 (b) was deemed the appropriate valuation rule for both periods, rejecting the Revenue's proposed Rule 4 and 110% cost of manufacture valuation. Consequently, the demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties was dismissed. The extended period of limitation for raising the demand was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the assessee's appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:17:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419361 The Tribunal determined that the assessee and the buyer were inter-connected undertakings but not related persons. Rule 10 (b) was deemed the appropriate valuation rule for both periods, rejecting the Revenue's proposed Rule 4 and 110% cost of manufacture valuation. Consequently, the demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties was dismissed. The extended period of limitation for raising the demand was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the assessee's appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419361