https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332716 The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Central Excise duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant for misdeclaration of goods' value in the manufacture of footwear. The appellant's admission of duty liability in specific instances was not sufficient to challenge the overall demand. Despite contesting based on the value of moulds from other manufacturers and citing procedural issues, the appellant's evasion of duty was established by substantial evidence. The Settlement Commission's rejection of the appellant's settlement application further supported the Revenue's position. Ultimately, the appellant failed to provide a compelling case to overturn the lower Authority's decision. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332716 The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Central Excise duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant for misdeclaration of goods' value in the manufacture of footwear. The appellant's admission of duty liability in specific instances was not sufficient to challenge the overall demand. Despite contesting based on the value of moulds from other manufacturers and citing procedural issues, the appellant's evasion of duty was established by substantial evidence. The Settlement Commission's rejection of the appellant's settlement application further supported the Revenue's position. Ultimately, the appellant failed to provide a compelling case to overturn the lower Authority's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332716