https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338489 Undervaluation of sub-assemblies was not established where the department relied on a highest-price comparison but the invoices showed different specifications and material variations in the goods cleared. In the absence of evidence that the appellant received any extra consideration beyond the recorded sale price, the department failed to prove that the clearances were of identical goods or that the declared value was incorrect. The demand for differential duty, with penalty and interest, could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:16:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338489 Undervaluation of sub-assemblies was not established where the department relied on a highest-price comparison but the invoices showed different specifications and material variations in the goods cleared. In the absence of evidence that the appellant received any extra consideration beyond the recorded sale price, the department failed to prove that the clearances were of identical goods or that the declared value was incorrect. The demand for differential duty, with penalty and interest, could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338489