https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235445 Valuation was upheld on the facts because the realised sale price was treated as cum-duty price for determining assessable value, and the Revenue's contrary challenge failed. The discussion also states that, where section 11AC applies, penalty is coextensive with the duty evaded and cannot be reduced below that amount. Accordingly, the penalty was enhanced to match the duty confirmed, while preserving the stated option of reduced discharge if paid within the prescribed time. The note therefore highlights both the factual basis for sustaining the valuation approach and the mandatory character of penalty under section 11AC when attracted. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:11:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235445 Valuation was upheld on the facts because the realised sale price was treated as cum-duty price for determining assessable value, and the Revenue's contrary challenge failed. The discussion also states that, where section 11AC applies, penalty is coextensive with the duty evaded and cannot be reduced below that amount. Accordingly, the penalty was enhanced to match the duty confirmed, while preserving the stated option of reduced discharge if paid within the prescribed time. The note therefore highlights both the factual basis for sustaining the valuation approach and the mandatory character of penalty under section 11AC when attracted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235445