https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205163 Undervaluation and clandestine removal were upheld on factual findings supported by the record, including the relationship between the entities, lower clearance value, octroi receipts, absence of corresponding invoices, and an un-retracted admission of clearance without payment of duty. The High Court found these findings were not shown to be perverse and therefore did not warrant interference. It also held that Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 was not the only relevant valuation provision, and that Rules 5 and 6 also empowered the assessing authority to detect undervaluation. The duty demand was sustained and no substantial question of law was found to arise. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205163 Undervaluation and clandestine removal were upheld on factual findings supported by the record, including the relationship between the entities, lower clearance value, octroi receipts, absence of corresponding invoices, and an un-retracted admission of clearance without payment of duty. The High Court found these findings were not shown to be perverse and therefore did not warrant interference. It also held that Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 was not the only relevant valuation provision, and that Rules 5 and 6 also empowered the assessing authority to detect undervaluation. The duty demand was sustained and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205163