https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80770 Comparable goods may be used for excise valuation only after true comparability is established and material differences in quality, process and other relevant factors are adjusted; on the facts, the outside purchase price could not be adopted as the assessable value, so the duty demand based on it failed. In the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked; the demand was therefore time-barred. Penalty could not be sustained because the amended show cause notice contained no specific proposal for penal action; the penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:25:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80770 Comparable goods may be used for excise valuation only after true comparability is established and material differences in quality, process and other relevant factors are adjusted; on the facts, the outside purchase price could not be adopted as the assessable value, so the duty demand based on it failed. In the absence of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the extended limitation period under Section 11A could not be invoked; the demand was therefore time-barred. Penalty could not be sustained because the amended show cause notice contained no specific proposal for penal action; the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80770