<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (9) TMI 179 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798153</link>
    <description>Transaction value under a buyback arrangement cannot serve as assessable value where batteries are supplied below manufacturing cost, co-packed into torches sold exclusively back to the supplier, and the price is neither arm&#039;s length nor the sole consideration; cost-based valuation was therefore sustained. Extended limitation requires suppression or an equivalent statutory ground. Registration, prescribed returns and Revenue knowledge of the agreements precluded extended limitation, rendering that demand time-barred, although demands within the normal limitation period and interest remained enforceable. Penalties based on suppression failed, and the CENVAT-credit penalty provision was inapplicable because no wrongful credit availment or utilisation was alleged or invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 08:20:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 179 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798153</link>
      <description>Transaction value under a buyback arrangement cannot serve as assessable value where batteries are supplied below manufacturing cost, co-packed into torches sold exclusively back to the supplier, and the price is neither arm&#039;s length nor the sole consideration; cost-based valuation was therefore sustained. Extended limitation requires suppression or an equivalent statutory ground. Registration, prescribed returns and Revenue knowledge of the agreements precluded extended limitation, rendering that demand time-barred, although demands within the normal limitation period and interest remained enforceable. Penalties based on suppression failed, and the CENVAT-credit penalty provision was inapplicable because no wrongful credit availment or utilisation was alleged or invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>