https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773238 Valuation of excisable goods cleared for trial and demonstration purposes depended on the correct interpretation of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, where the applicable method was considered unsettled and different views had existed on Rule 8. Because the assessee had disclosed the valuation method to the department, the matter was treated as a legal interpretation issue rather than one involving suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. As a result, the duty demand was confined to the normal period, while the extended period of limitation and the penalty were held not sustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773238 Valuation of excisable goods cleared for trial and demonstration purposes depended on the correct interpretation of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, where the applicable method was considered unsettled and different views had existed on Rule 8. Because the assessee had disclosed the valuation method to the department, the matter was treated as a legal interpretation issue rather than one involving suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. As a result, the duty demand was confined to the normal period, while the extended period of limitation and the penalty were held not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773238