https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782465 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order demanding short-paid excise duty, interest, and penalties for alleged undervaluation of depot clearances. The Tribunal held that valuation under Rule 7 of the 2000 Valuation Rules should be based on normal transaction value at the depot, not on the indicative Price List, and the appellant's methodology of paying differential duty on higher depot prices aligned with Rule 7. Since ER-1 returns disclosed such differential duty and there was excess payment, there was no intent to evade duty, rendering invocation of the extended limitation period under section 11A unsustainable. Penalties were also held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782465 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order demanding short-paid excise duty, interest, and penalties for alleged undervaluation of depot clearances. The Tribunal held that valuation under Rule 7 of the 2000 Valuation Rules should be based on normal transaction value at the depot, not on the indicative Price List, and the appellant's methodology of paying differential duty on higher depot prices aligned with Rule 7. Since ER-1 returns disclosed such differential duty and there was excess payment, there was no intent to evade duty, rendering invocation of the extended limitation period under section 11A unsustainable. Penalties were also held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782465