https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751907 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for differential duty on goods transferred for captive consumption. The tribunal held that the appellant correctly paid duty under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules following CAS-4 methodology per CBEC Circular 692/8/2003-CX, which is binding on revenue per SC precedent. The extended period of limitation was not invokable as no facts were suppressed. The situation was revenue neutral since the sister unit could claim cenvat credit. Additionally, revenue cannot issue show-cause notice without challenging finalized provisional assessments. No penalty was imposed. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751907 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for differential duty on goods transferred for captive consumption. The tribunal held that the appellant correctly paid duty under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules following CAS-4 methodology per CBEC Circular 692/8/2003-CX, which is binding on revenue per SC precedent. The extended period of limitation was not invokable as no facts were suppressed. The situation was revenue neutral since the sister unit could claim cenvat credit. Additionally, revenue cannot issue show-cause notice without challenging finalized provisional assessments. No penalty was imposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751907