https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448534 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to restrict the demand for differential duty to the normal period of limitation, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the respondent had complied with the assessment procedure under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and filed ER-1 Returns periodically. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the extended limitation period could not be invoked, affirming that the demand was appropriately limited. No separate judgment was delivered by the judges. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448534 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to restrict the demand for differential duty to the normal period of limitation, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the respondent had complied with the assessment procedure under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and filed ER-1 Returns periodically. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the extended limitation period could not be invoked, affirming that the demand was appropriately limited. No separate judgment was delivered by the judges. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448534