Demand set aside: extended limitation cannot sustain 01.05.2003-30.09.2004; Rule 9 misapplied without s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) findings and Rule 10 mandates valuation as if unrelated

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand. The Tribunal held the extended period of limitation could not sustain the demand for the period 01.05.2003-30.09.2004 in light of controlling SC precedent, rendering confirmation under the extended period untenable. Further, the adjudication erroneously applied Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules by treating oil marketing companies as "related persons" without recording requisite findings under s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Rule 10 requires valuation as if not related unless those statutory relationships are established. For these reasons the demand lacked legal foundation and the appeal was allowed.....