https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245375 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, finding insufficient evidence to support the alleged overvaluation leading to recovery of refund and imposition of penalty. The burden of proving overvaluation was on the department, which failed to provide additional evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that non-receipt of full payment from the buyer does not automatically indicate overvaluation. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues, stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal, and did not find merit in the penalty imposition due to lack of conclusive proof of excess refund availed by the applicant. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245375 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, finding insufficient evidence to support the alleged overvaluation leading to recovery of refund and imposition of penalty. The burden of proving overvaluation was on the department, which failed to provide additional evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that non-receipt of full payment from the buyer does not automatically indicate overvaluation. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues, stayed the recovery pending appeal disposal, and did not find merit in the penalty imposition due to lack of conclusive proof of excess refund availed by the applicant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245375