https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448581 CESTAT New Delhi held that LED bulbs sold by appellant to EESL were correctly assessed under section 4 (transaction value) rather than section 4A (RSP minus abatement). The tribunal found these bulbs were not covered by Metrology Rules since they were prohibited from retail sale and lacked printed RSP as required by EESL contract terms. The bulbs were distributed through EESL's network only, not sold in retail market. Extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as the assessment involved debatable legal interpretation, not willful suppression. Revenue's failure to scrutinize returns within normal limitation period favored appellant. Appeal allowed on both merits and limitation grounds. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2026 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448581 CESTAT New Delhi held that LED bulbs sold by appellant to EESL were correctly assessed under section 4 (transaction value) rather than section 4A (RSP minus abatement). The tribunal found these bulbs were not covered by Metrology Rules since they were prohibited from retail sale and lacked printed RSP as required by EESL contract terms. The bulbs were distributed through EESL's network only, not sold in retail market. Extended period of limitation was incorrectly invoked as the assessment involved debatable legal interpretation, not willful suppression. Revenue's failure to scrutinize returns within normal limitation period favored appellant. Appeal allowed on both merits and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448581