https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93461 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that valuation could not be on transaction value under s.4(1)(a) as removals were stock transfers; valuation fell under s.4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Discounts known at or before removal, whether via invoice or post-clearance credit notes, qualified as permissible deductions from assessable value where genuinely passed to buyers, supported by ledgers and policies. The departmental disallowance of such discounts and consequent differential duty demand was unsustainable; interest on those disallowed demands was not exigible. Payments of differential duty with interest voluntarily made by the Appellant were considered non-refundable. Appeal allowed. en-us Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:21 +0530 Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93461 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that valuation could not be on transaction value under s.4(1)(a) as removals were stock transfers; valuation fell under s.4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Discounts known at or before removal, whether via invoice or post-clearance credit notes, qualified as permissible deductions from assessable value where genuinely passed to buyers, supported by ledgers and policies. The departmental disallowance of such discounts and consequent differential duty demand was unsustainable; interest on those disallowed demands was not exigible. Payments of differential duty with interest voluntarily made by the Appellant were considered non-refundable. Appeal allowed. Highlights Central Excise Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93461