https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759111 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-appeal that confirmed a demand and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A was improperly invoked, as the necessary scrutiny of returns was not conducted by officers. The demand was based on Valuation Rules not cited in the show cause notice, and there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant and buyers were interconnected undertakings. The Tribunal's decision, aligned with a previous ruling, provided consequential relief to the appellant, with the order pronounced on 24/09/2024. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:32:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759111 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the order-in-appeal that confirmed a demand and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation under Section 11A was improperly invoked, as the necessary scrutiny of returns was not conducted by officers. The demand was based on Valuation Rules not cited in the show cause notice, and there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant and buyers were interconnected undertakings. The Tribunal's decision, aligned with a previous ruling, provided consequential relief to the appellant, with the order pronounced on 24/09/2024. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759111