https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755159 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against undervaluation allegations where the department claimed the assessee failed to apply Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for FOS and Sucralose cleared to related parties and another entity. Following the Larger Bench decision in ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD., the Tribunal held Rule 8 applies only when entire production is captively consumed, not when some production is sold to independent buyers. Rule 4 takes precedence over Rule 8 in sequential application. The department failed to provide evidence of cost comparison or comparable market prices to establish undervaluation. The demand was set aside. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2024 08:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755159 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal against undervaluation allegations where the department claimed the assessee failed to apply Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for FOS and Sucralose cleared to related parties and another entity. Following the Larger Bench decision in ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD., the Tribunal held Rule 8 applies only when entire production is captively consumed, not when some production is sold to independent buyers. Rule 4 takes precedence over Rule 8 in sequential application. The department failed to provide evidence of cost comparison or comparable market prices to establish undervaluation. The demand was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755159