https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262003 A fresh excise proceeding could not be sustained on an identical foundation after earlier proceedings on the same alleged clandestine removal had been dropped, so that demand failed. By contrast, the adjudication on under-valuation was upheld because the order referred to the evidence in the show cause notice, recorded that no defence had been offered, and was not vitiated merely because it did not reproduce the material in full. The result was that relief was denied on the clandestine removal issue, while the under-valuation demand was restored. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 18:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262003 A fresh excise proceeding could not be sustained on an identical foundation after earlier proceedings on the same alleged clandestine removal had been dropped, so that demand failed. By contrast, the adjudication on under-valuation was upheld because the order referred to the evidence in the show cause notice, recorded that no defence had been offered, and was not vitiated merely because it did not reproduce the material in full. The result was that relief was denied on the clandestine removal issue, while the under-valuation demand was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262003