https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209547 In an excise undervaluation dispute, the extended limitation period was treated as available where suppression with intent to evade duty was alleged, so the demand was not time-barred. The evidence from recovered slips, employee and dealer statements, and bank records was accepted as relevant to proving undervaluation for the clearances actually covered by those materials. However, the same limited evidence could not justify a uniform extrapolation to all clearances for the entire year. Duty had to be determined clearance-wise on transaction value, retracted statements required corroboration, and the inadequate appellate reasoning and natural justice concerns led to de novo adjudication. en-us Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209547 In an excise undervaluation dispute, the extended limitation period was treated as available where suppression with intent to evade duty was alleged, so the demand was not time-barred. The evidence from recovered slips, employee and dealer statements, and bank records was accepted as relevant to proving undervaluation for the clearances actually covered by those materials. However, the same limited evidence could not justify a uniform extrapolation to all clearances for the entire year. Duty had to be determined clearance-wise on transaction value, retracted statements required corroboration, and the inadequate appellate reasoning and natural justice concerns led to de novo adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209547