https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781034 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the excise demand. The tribunal found the extended period could not be invoked in light of the SC decision on identical facts, and held the impugned order erred in applying Rule 9 without any finding that the parties met the related-person criteria in Section 4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv). Rule 10 requires valuing transactions between interconnected undertakings as if they were unrelated unless those statutory conditions are established; absence of such findings defeated the demand. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781034 CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the excise demand. The tribunal found the extended period could not be invoked in light of the SC decision on identical facts, and held the impugned order erred in applying Rule 9 without any finding that the parties met the related-person criteria in Section 4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv). Rule 10 requires valuing transactions between interconnected undertakings as if they were unrelated unless those statutory conditions are established; absence of such findings defeated the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781034