https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95070 Clandestine removal and undervaluation of excisable goods were treated as proved, and the absence of rebuttal left the adjudication findings intact. The classification dispute did not defeat the demand because decorative laminate sheets had already been placed under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the central excise duty demand in the show cause notice was sustained, reflecting the principle that proved suppression and a settled adverse classification support confirmation of duty. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95070 Clandestine removal and undervaluation of excisable goods were treated as proved, and the absence of rebuttal left the adjudication findings intact. The classification dispute did not defeat the demand because decorative laminate sheets had already been placed under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the central excise duty demand in the show cause notice was sustained, reflecting the principle that proved suppression and a settled adverse classification support confirmation of duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95070