https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107642 Extra collection and undervaluation must be proved by affirmative material on record; a mere investigative deposit or admission cannot, by itself, establish liability. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not identify any specific evidence to displace the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings, and the assessee's payment during investigation was not proof of guilt. The approved ex-factory price under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained relevant to valuation. On that basis, the demand was not sustained and no interference with the order setting aside duty was warranted. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:43:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107642 Extra collection and undervaluation must be proved by affirmative material on record; a mere investigative deposit or admission cannot, by itself, establish liability. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not identify any specific evidence to displace the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings, and the assessee's payment during investigation was not proof of guilt. The approved ex-factory price under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained relevant to valuation. On that basis, the demand was not sustained and no interference with the order setting aside duty was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107642