Rule 10A vs Rule 11 Valuation Dispute: CESTAT Sets Aside Rs. 1.52 Crore Excise Demand on Job Work Transactions

HomeIndirect TaxesRule 10A vs Rule 11 Valuation Dispute: CESTAT Sets Aside Rs. 1.52...

Rule 10A vs Rule 11 Valuation Dispute: CESTAT Sets Aside Rs. 1.52 Crore Excise Demand on Job Work Transactions

Indirect Taxes Top Stories

Published on

04/04/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, has set aside a demand of ₹1.52 crore holding that the valuation method adopted by the department was legally unsustainable and contrary to established principles under the Central Excise law. The bench of D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) has…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Rule 11 Valuation Dispute

Rule 10A vs Rule 11 Valuation Dispute: CESTAT Sets Aside Rs. 1.52 Crore Excise Demand on Job Work Transactions

Membership Required

Latest articles

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

Whether ‘3 Months’ U/s 73(10) of CGST Act Means Exactly 3 Calendar Months or 90 Days? SC Issues Notice

Service of Notice Can Establish Wilful Default Under S. 276-B: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash TDS Default Prosecution

Supreme Court Examines Challenge to Section 16(2)(c) CGST

More like this

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

Whether ‘3 Months’ U/s 73(10) of CGST Act Means Exactly 3 Calendar Months or 90 Days? SC Issues Notice

Service of Notice Can Establish Wilful Default Under S. 276-B: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash TDS Default Prosecution

About us

Company

Categories