https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363536 The Tribunal upheld the decision against the appellant, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all relevant facts and evidence to the Department. The case involved under-valuation detected during a CERA Audit, leading to the payment of differential duty. The appellant's argument that the demand notice for recovery of duty was barred by limitation was rejected, as the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of no suppression of facts. Transparency and compliance with valuation regulations were underscored to avoid disputes and penalties. en-us Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363536 The Tribunal upheld the decision against the appellant, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all relevant facts and evidence to the Department. The case involved under-valuation detected during a CERA Audit, leading to the payment of differential duty. The appellant's argument that the demand notice for recovery of duty was barred by limitation was rejected, as the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of no suppression of facts. Transparency and compliance with valuation regulations were underscored to avoid disputes and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363536