https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445363 CESTAT Mumbai held that valuation of excisable goods under Central Excise Act, 1944 must follow proper procedural requirements. The tribunal found that rules 6 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 could not be invoked as they relate to sales, leaving only rules 8 and 11 applicable. Despite SC precedent in Merino Panel Product Ltd allowing deviation from provisions cited in notices, natural justice requires facts in show cause notice to be basis for adverse action. The appellant failed to establish compliance with rule 8. The impugned order was set aside and matter remanded to original authority for fresh determination of correct duty liability, allowing appeal by way of remand. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2023 08:51:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445363 CESTAT Mumbai held that valuation of excisable goods under Central Excise Act, 1944 must follow proper procedural requirements. The tribunal found that rules 6 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 could not be invoked as they relate to sales, leaving only rules 8 and 11 applicable. Despite SC precedent in Merino Panel Product Ltd allowing deviation from provisions cited in notices, natural justice requires facts in show cause notice to be basis for adverse action. The appellant failed to establish compliance with rule 8. The impugned order was set aside and matter remanded to original authority for fresh determination of correct duty liability, allowing appeal by way of remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445363