https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772646 CESTAT Chennai remanded a case involving improper valuation of tooling advances under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant failed to correctly calculate the value of traded goods per Explanation 1(c) to Rule 6(3A), which requires using the difference between sale price and cost of goods sold or 10% of cost, whichever is higher. The tribunal found the valuation method required verification and noted that if the trading margin was amortized without deliberate suppression, it would constitute reasonable cause rather than willful deception, avoiding extended limitation period and penalties. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice principles. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772646 CESTAT Chennai remanded a case involving improper valuation of tooling advances under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant failed to correctly calculate the value of traded goods per Explanation 1(c) to Rule 6(3A), which requires using the difference between sale price and cost of goods sold or 10% of cost, whichever is higher. The tribunal found the valuation method required verification and noted that if the trading margin was amortized without deliberate suppression, it would constitute reasonable cause rather than willful deception, avoiding extended limitation period and penalties. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice principles. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772646