https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448264 CESTAT Bangalore held that for clinker transfers to sister units during March 2011-November 2013, Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 applies rather than Rule 8, following ISPAT INDUSTRIES precedent. The extended limitation period was rejected as the appellant had declared assessable value using Rule 8 in ER-1 returns without departmental objection, negating suppression allegations. The order was modified, setting aside the extended period demand and remanding to re-determine assessable value under correct rules for differential duty computation. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2024 21:00:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448264 CESTAT Bangalore held that for clinker transfers to sister units during March 2011-November 2013, Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 applies rather than Rule 8, following ISPAT INDUSTRIES precedent. The extended limitation period was rejected as the appellant had declared assessable value using Rule 8 in ER-1 returns without departmental objection, negating suppression allegations. The order was modified, setting aside the extended period demand and remanding to re-determine assessable value under correct rules for differential duty computation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448264