https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354522 Paints and thinners cleared in bulk packs to industrial consumers were held to fall outside the MRP-based valuation regime, because they were not required to bear retail sale price markings; valuation was therefore required under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 rather than Section 4A. The non-disclosure of differential consideration received through separate commercial invoices, together with misdeclaration on MRP-based clearance, was treated as suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, justifying invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1). The duty demand and consequential penalty were sustained. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:04:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354522 Paints and thinners cleared in bulk packs to industrial consumers were held to fall outside the MRP-based valuation regime, because they were not required to bear retail sale price markings; valuation was therefore required under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 rather than Section 4A. The non-disclosure of differential consideration received through separate commercial invoices, together with misdeclaration on MRP-based clearance, was treated as suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, justifying invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1). The duty demand and consequential penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354522