Undervaluation demands need corroborated proof of extra consideration; retracted statements alone cannot sustain duty liability.

Undervaluation-based excise duty demand cannot be sustained on recovered price lists, cost sheets and retracted third-party statements unless there is positive, corroborated evidence of extra consideration and a reliable evidentiary chain. The material here was found insufficient because the statements were substantially retracted, allegedly coerced, and did not establish actual sale price across the dealer and customer base. By contrast, clearances under invoices of another firm and the irregular retention of Cenvat credit were supported by the record and remained sustainable. The commentary also notes that penalty proceedings were remitted for fresh adjudication in light of the findings on undervaluation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the differential duty demand founded on alleged undervaluation could be sustained on the basis of recovered price lists, cost sheets and retracted third-party statements. (ii) Whether the duty demand relating to clearance of goods under the invoices of M/s. Techno Industries and the demand for irregular Cenvat credit were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the differential duty demand founded on alleged undervaluation could be sustained on the basis of recovered price lists, cost sheets and retracted third-party statements.

Analysis: The valuation case rested mainly on price lists recovered from one dealer, a limited number of customer statements, and cost sheets recovered from the assessee's premises. The statements were substantially retracted and were found to have been obtained under coercion. The investigation did not cover the vast majority of dealers and customers, and no concrete evidence established receipt of extra consideration over invoice price. The recovered price list itself referred to discount, and the record did not establish with reliability what actual sale price was realised in each case. In the absence of positive evidence and a complete chain of proof, undervaluation could not be quantified or fastened merely on suspicion or inference.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty on the basis of undervaluation was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand relating to clearance of goods under the invoices of M/s. Techno Industries and the demand for irregular Cenvat credit were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee's managing director admitted that some goods were cleared under the invoices of M/s. Techno Industries, and the record contained no satisfactory explanation to displace that admission. The irregular Cenvat credit on returned inputs was reversed only after departmental detection and not voluntarily, showing that the credit was wrongly availed and retained for the relevant period. These liabilities were independent of the failed undervaluation case and were supported by the material on record.

Conclusion: The demand relating to clearances under Techno Industries invoices and the demand and penalty concerning the wrong Cenvat credit were upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The undervaluation-based demand failed for want of reliable proof, but the connected liability for clandestine clearances under another firm's invoices and the irregular Cenvat credit issue survived. The penalty proceedings were remitted for fresh adjudication in light of the findings on undervaluation.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for undervaluation cannot be sustained or quantified without positive, corroborated evidence of receipt of extra consideration and a reliable evidentiary chain; retracted third-party statements, without more, are insufficient.

---