https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122443 For specified packaged goods valued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the MRP-based abatement under Notification No. 20/99-C.E. (N.T.) was held available even where the removals were alleged to be clandestine, because no statutory basis was shown for denying the prescribed abatement merely on that ground. The valuation approach had also been applied to similar shortages, and no principled distinction was established between shortages and clandestine clearances for this purpose. In settlement proceedings, cooperation, disclosure of duty liability, payment of admitted duty, and payment of interest supported grant of immunity from further interest, fine, penalty and prosecution under Section 32K(1). en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:54:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122443 For specified packaged goods valued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the MRP-based abatement under Notification No. 20/99-C.E. (N.T.) was held available even where the removals were alleged to be clandestine, because no statutory basis was shown for denying the prescribed abatement merely on that ground. The valuation approach had also been applied to similar shortages, and no principled distinction was established between shortages and clandestine clearances for this purpose. In settlement proceedings, cooperation, disclosure of duty liability, payment of admitted duty, and payment of interest supported grant of immunity from further interest, fine, penalty and prosecution under Section 32K(1). Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122443