https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760457 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside impugned orders on both merits and limitation grounds. The tribunal held that appellant correctly valued captively-used barges under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules based on cost method from books of account, rejecting revenue's attempt to use insurance policy values which included post-manufacturing additions. CENVAT credit was properly availed on inputs/input services used in barge manufacture, despite receipt before registration, as transition provisions permitted such credit. Show cause notices issued in 2016-2017 for 2011-2012 period were time-barred given appellant's prior disclosure in 2012. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:34:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760457 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, setting aside impugned orders on both merits and limitation grounds. The tribunal held that appellant correctly valued captively-used barges under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules based on cost method from books of account, rejecting revenue's attempt to use insurance policy values which included post-manufacturing additions. CENVAT credit was properly availed on inputs/input services used in barge manufacture, despite receipt before registration, as transition provisions permitted such credit. Show cause notices issued in 2016-2017 for 2011-2012 period were time-barred given appellant's prior disclosure in 2012. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760457