https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445409 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside the demand order in a valuation dispute case. The appellant cleared finished products to related party at lower value compared to other customers. The Tribunal held that Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 cannot be applied when goods are sold to both related and independent buyers, following precedent from ISPAT INDUSTRIES case. The extended limitation period was also rejected as appellant filed regular monthly returns without concealing material facts, making suppression allegations unsustainable. Appeal was allowed and impugned order set aside. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2023 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445409 CESTAT Chandigarh set aside the demand order in a valuation dispute case. The appellant cleared finished products to related party at lower value compared to other customers. The Tribunal held that Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 cannot be applied when goods are sold to both related and independent buyers, following precedent from ISPAT INDUSTRIES case. The extended limitation period was also rejected as appellant filed regular monthly returns without concealing material facts, making suppression allegations unsustainable. Appeal was allowed and impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445409