https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198735 Destructive testing did not, by itself, take the batteries outside excise, but the assessable value could not be enhanced by adding overheads without evidentiary support and statutory backing. The damaged batteries were part of the raw material stream returned to production, and the overheads were already reflected in the prime products cleared on duty payment; reintroducing them for the tested batteries would create a second incidence of duty. On that basis, the redetermination of value was unjustified and the demand, interest, and penalty could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:42:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198735 Destructive testing did not, by itself, take the batteries outside excise, but the assessable value could not be enhanced by adding overheads without evidentiary support and statutory backing. The damaged batteries were part of the raw material stream returned to production, and the overheads were already reflected in the prime products cleared on duty payment; reintroducing them for the tested batteries would create a second incidence of duty. On that basis, the redetermination of value was unjustified and the demand, interest, and penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198735