Excise valuation based on unreliable dealer quotations failed, and tariff value was upheld for disputed plywood clearances.

Excise valuation of disputed plywood could not be based on dealer quotations where the quotations were not shown to arise from any tender process, some were undated, and the quoted parties had not inspected the goods. The record did not establish a genuine market basis for valuing defective or rejected plywood, so the authorities were justified in rejecting the claimed assessable value and applying the applicable tariff value for commercial plywood. The differential duty demand was therefore sustained, and the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise duty on the disputed plywood was correctly assessable on the basis of tariff value rather than the quotations allegedly obtained from selected dealers, and whether the demand for differential duty was sustainable.

Analysis: The quotations relied upon by the assessee were found unreliable because they were not shown to have been invited through any tender process, some lacked dates, and the quoted parties had not inspected the goods. On the record, the materials did not establish that the goods were valued on a genuine market basis for defective or rejected plywood. The authorities were therefore justified in rejecting the claimed assessable value based on such quotations and in treating the goods according to the applicable tariff value for commercial plywood.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the Revenue was upheld and the assessee's challenge to the differential duty demand failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the assessee did not establish that the disputed clearances could be assessed on the basis of the alleged dealer quotations instead of the tariff value.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, unsupported or non-genuine quotations cannot displace the applicable tariff value where the assessee fails to prove that the claimed price reflects a real market assessment of the goods.

---