https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207170 The case involved a dispute over undervaluation of aromatic compounds cleared to contract manufacturers, leading to evasion of Central Excise duty. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the Tribunal found that the prices declared were not undervalued, the contract manufacturers were independent entities, and there was insufficient evidence to prove price manipulation. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual evidence in excise duty cases and concluded that the Revenue's case lacked merit, resulting in the rejection of the appeal. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207170 The case involved a dispute over undervaluation of aromatic compounds cleared to contract manufacturers, leading to evasion of Central Excise duty. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the Tribunal found that the prices declared were not undervalued, the contract manufacturers were independent entities, and there was insufficient evidence to prove price manipulation. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual evidence in excise duty cases and concluded that the Revenue's case lacked merit, resulting in the rejection of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207170