https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240206 Clandestine removal, undervaluation, misdeclaration and unauthorised use of a brand name were held supportable on oral and documentary evidence showing suppressed quantity, value and description, together with misdeclared invoices and matching transport records. On that basis, duty demand and penalties were sustained. The redemption fines on seized goods were, however, found disproportionate to the duty element and surrounding circumstances in two instances, so the fines were reduced while the underlying liability remained intact. The decision applies a proportionality approach to redemption fine while affirming that cogent evidence of evasion and misdeclaration justifies excise demands and penalties. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:25:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240206 Clandestine removal, undervaluation, misdeclaration and unauthorised use of a brand name were held supportable on oral and documentary evidence showing suppressed quantity, value and description, together with misdeclared invoices and matching transport records. On that basis, duty demand and penalties were sustained. The redemption fines on seized goods were, however, found disproportionate to the duty element and surrounding circumstances in two instances, so the fines were reduced while the underlying liability remained intact. The decision applies a proportionality approach to redemption fine while affirming that cogent evidence of evasion and misdeclaration justifies excise demands and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240206