https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34528 The Tribunal found that the companies were interconnected undertakings, applying the amended Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The invocation of Rule 10 was deemed improper as goods were not exclusively sold to related persons. The engagement of the Assistant Director (Cost) was upheld, and selling below cost was not permissible in this case. The demand was not barred by limitation, and penalties were imposed but modified to align with legal provisions. The impugned order was partially allowed, with detailed analysis provided for each issue. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34528 The Tribunal found that the companies were interconnected undertakings, applying the amended Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The invocation of Rule 10 was deemed improper as goods were not exclusively sold to related persons. The engagement of the Assistant Director (Cost) was upheld, and selling below cost was not permissible in this case. The demand was not barred by limitation, and penalties were imposed but modified to align with legal provisions. The impugned order was partially allowed, with detailed analysis provided for each issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34528