https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781127 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held Rule 10A(iii) inapplicable because the facts showed job-worker manufacturing on behalf of the principal manufacturer; valuation must follow the principle in Ujagar Prints and Rule 11, assessing value as cost of materials plus processing charges. The Tribunal found the decision in Advance Surfactants applicable. Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified as the adjudicating authority gave no reasons to extend time. Consequently the demand and related penalties in the impugned order were annulled. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Nov 2025 08:17:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781127 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held Rule 10A(iii) inapplicable because the facts showed job-worker manufacturing on behalf of the principal manufacturer; valuation must follow the principle in Ujagar Prints and Rule 11, assessing value as cost of materials plus processing charges. The Tribunal found the decision in Advance Surfactants applicable. Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified as the adjudicating authority gave no reasons to extend time. Consequently the demand and related penalties in the impugned order were annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781127