https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125180 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that there was insufficient evidence to prove misdeclaration of value by the merchant manufacturers. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of proof of connivance or knowledge on the part of the processor regarding the alleged misdeclaration. Referring to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in CCE, Mumbai v. Lajya Dyeing & Bleaching Works, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation did not apply without evidence of deliberate misdeclaration by the processor. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:58:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125180 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that there was insufficient evidence to prove misdeclaration of value by the merchant manufacturers. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of proof of connivance or knowledge on the part of the processor regarding the alleged misdeclaration. Referring to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in CCE, Mumbai v. Lajya Dyeing & Bleaching Works, the Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation did not apply without evidence of deliberate misdeclaration by the processor. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125180