https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753001 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal in a valuation dispute where the appellant divided a contract into 70% goods and 30% services, paying excise duty only on the goods portion. The tribunal held that the 30% balance amount constituted services requiring service tax, not enhanced excise duty on goods value. The revenue incorrectly treated this as a valuation case rather than demanding service tax. Since goods weren't supplied to appellant's own unit, CAS-4 valuation wasn't applicable. The extended period demand was unsustainable as the registered manufacturer filed monthly returns showing adopted values, with no scrutiny by range officials. Both confirmed demand and penalties on the company and director were set aside. en-us Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 May 2024 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753001 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal in a valuation dispute where the appellant divided a contract into 70% goods and 30% services, paying excise duty only on the goods portion. The tribunal held that the 30% balance amount constituted services requiring service tax, not enhanced excise duty on goods value. The revenue incorrectly treated this as a valuation case rather than demanding service tax. Since goods weren't supplied to appellant's own unit, CAS-4 valuation wasn't applicable. The extended period demand was unsustainable as the registered manufacturer filed monthly returns showing adopted values, with no scrutiny by range officials. Both confirmed demand and penalties on the company and director were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753001