https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119466 Suppression could not be attributed to the appellant where the assessable value and input cost were revised immediately after receiving information that the supplying unit had paid differential duty on the same date. The record showed contemporaneous payment by both units, and the materials did not establish any suppression by the appellant. On those facts, any suppression, if at all, was attributable to the supplying unit, so denial of relief under Rule 57E could not be supported on an unsubstantiated allegation. The appellant was therefore treated as entitled to the certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119466 Suppression could not be attributed to the appellant where the assessable value and input cost were revised immediately after receiving information that the supplying unit had paid differential duty on the same date. The record showed contemporaneous payment by both units, and the materials did not establish any suppression by the appellant. On those facts, any suppression, if at all, was attributable to the supplying unit, so denial of relief under Rule 57E could not be supported on an unsubstantiated allegation. The appellant was therefore treated as entitled to the certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119466