https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776381 The CESTAT held that the appellant and their customer, though interconnected undertakings, were not related persons under Section 4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and thus valuation could not be made under Rule 9 of the CEVR, 2000. Instead, valuation was to be determined under Rule 10(b) based on Section 4(1). The revenue's revaluation and cost of production calculation were found unscientific and legally untenable. The extended period of limitation and penalties under Section 11AC were also disallowed as the issue involved interpretation without any suppression or intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Aug 2025 08:48:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776381 The CESTAT held that the appellant and their customer, though interconnected undertakings, were not related persons under Section 4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and thus valuation could not be made under Rule 9 of the CEVR, 2000. Instead, valuation was to be determined under Rule 10(b) based on Section 4(1). The revenue's revaluation and cost of production calculation were found unscientific and legally untenable. The extended period of limitation and penalties under Section 11AC were also disallowed as the issue involved interpretation without any suppression or intent to evade duty. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776381