https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762422 CESTAT Bangalore held that clinkers transferred to sister units should be valued under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, not Rule 8, following the Ispat Industries precedent. The Tribunal rejected revenue neutrality arguments, clarifying it cannot override statutory valuation provisions. Extended limitation period was set aside as no suppression of facts occurred in statutory interpretation cases. The matter was remanded to redetermine assessable value under Rule 4 with Rule 11 for normal limitation period only, with penalty also set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762422 CESTAT Bangalore held that clinkers transferred to sister units should be valued under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, not Rule 8, following the Ispat Industries precedent. The Tribunal rejected revenue neutrality arguments, clarifying it cannot override statutory valuation provisions. Extended limitation period was set aside as no suppression of facts occurred in statutory interpretation cases. The matter was remanded to redetermine assessable value under Rule 4 with Rule 11 for normal limitation period only, with penalty also set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762422