https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340275 Where a duty shortfall arose from an erroneous MRP-based valuation under Section 4A without proof of suppression or wilful misstatement, recovery was confined to the normal limitation period and penalty under Section 11AC was not attracted. Demands based on an undisclosed investigation report, where the assessee was not supplied the material or given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, were set aside. A similar valuation dispute on Dyna Pro Powered was upheld only within the normal period and remanded for re-quantification. Confiscation of seized godown goods was also set aside because the underlying case was only one of incorrect duty calculation, not a sufficient basis for confiscation. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340275 Where a duty shortfall arose from an erroneous MRP-based valuation under Section 4A without proof of suppression or wilful misstatement, recovery was confined to the normal limitation period and penalty under Section 11AC was not attracted. Demands based on an undisclosed investigation report, where the assessee was not supplied the material or given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, were set aside. A similar valuation dispute on Dyna Pro Powered was upheld only within the normal period and remanded for re-quantification. Confiscation of seized godown goods was also set aside because the underlying case was only one of incorrect duty calculation, not a sufficient basis for confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340275