https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260852 Undervaluation was not proved because the record did not contain cogent evidence of flow back, additional consideration, or any price difference between clearances to genuine buyers and those routed through brokers. Stock statements given to a bank were held insufficient to establish suppression or undervaluation. In the absence of reliable material showing that Section 4(1)(a) was inapplicable, there was no basis to discard the invoice value or invoke Section 4(1)(b) and the valuation rules. The transaction value therefore remained acceptable and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260852 Undervaluation was not proved because the record did not contain cogent evidence of flow back, additional consideration, or any price difference between clearances to genuine buyers and those routed through brokers. Stock statements given to a bank were held insufficient to establish suppression or undervaluation. In the absence of reliable material showing that Section 4(1)(a) was inapplicable, there was no basis to discard the invoice value or invoke Section 4(1)(b) and the valuation rules. The transaction value therefore remained acceptable and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260852