Extra collection must be proved by affirmative evidence; investigative deposits alone do not establish undervaluation or duty liability.

Extra collection and undervaluation must be proved by affirmative material on record; a mere investigative deposit or admission cannot, by itself, establish liability. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not identify any specific evidence to displace the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings, and the assessee's payment during investigation was not proof of guilt. The approved ex-factory price under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained relevant to valuation. On that basis, the demand was not sustained and no interference with the order setting aside duty was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had adduced sufficient evidence to dislodge the finding that the alleged extra collections and undervaluation were not proved.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal did not point to any specific evidence rebutting the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings. The mere fact that the assessee had made a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs during investigation was held not to be proof of guilt. It was emphasized that an admission or deposit made during investigation cannot substitute for affirmative legal evidence, and the allegation of extra collection had to be established by sufficient material on record. The approved ex-factory price under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also relevant to the valuation adopted.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove the demand, and no ground was made out to interfere with the order setting aside the duty demand.

---