https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90131 In excise valuation, invoice price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be displaced on suspicion alone; the department must prove extra-commercial consideration transaction by transaction, and the evidence of varying models, inputs and accepted invoice values supported rejection of a uniform higher value. The allegation that a separate unit was a dummy concern was also rejected because the record showed separate registration, separate dealings and independent operation, so clubbing of clearances was not sustained. On clandestine removals, however, the quantification required fresh verification and recomputation, and the related personal penalty had to be redetermined after reworking. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:03:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90131 In excise valuation, invoice price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be displaced on suspicion alone; the department must prove extra-commercial consideration transaction by transaction, and the evidence of varying models, inputs and accepted invoice values supported rejection of a uniform higher value. The allegation that a separate unit was a dummy concern was also rejected because the record showed separate registration, separate dealings and independent operation, so clubbing of clearances was not sustained. On clandestine removals, however, the quantification required fresh verification and recomputation, and the related personal penalty had to be redetermined after reworking. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90131