https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307971 Captive-consumption valuation disclosed through monthly CAS-4 working, supported by CAS-4 certificates and ER-1 returns, was treated as transparent on the facts, and the department's preference for an annual CAS-4 computation did not by itself justify a differential duty demand. Because the record did not establish suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty, invocation of the extended period was held unsustainable. The consequential interest and penalty also fell once the underlying demand could not survive, and excess duty paid in some months was not required to be ignored merely because the department challenged the valuation method. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 May 2023 22:07:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307971 Captive-consumption valuation disclosed through monthly CAS-4 working, supported by CAS-4 certificates and ER-1 returns, was treated as transparent on the facts, and the department's preference for an annual CAS-4 computation did not by itself justify a differential duty demand. Because the record did not establish suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty, invocation of the extended period was held unsustainable. The consequential interest and penalty also fell once the underlying demand could not survive, and excess duty paid in some months was not required to be ignored merely because the department challenged the valuation method. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307971