https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364847 Corroborated seized documents and statements were sufficient to sustain an undervaluation charge, but duty could be quantified only for transactions supported by evidence; the demand could not be expanded beyond proved instances. Retraction during cross-examination did not, by itself, make the statements unreliable, because there was no prompt retraction, no showing of coercion, and documentary corroboration existed. Separate penalties on partners were unwarranted where the firms had already been penalized and no independent personal liability was established; those penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:00:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364847 Corroborated seized documents and statements were sufficient to sustain an undervaluation charge, but duty could be quantified only for transactions supported by evidence; the demand could not be expanded beyond proved instances. Retraction during cross-examination did not, by itself, make the statements unreliable, because there was no prompt retraction, no showing of coercion, and documentary corroboration existed. Separate penalties on partners were unwarranted where the firms had already been penalized and no independent personal liability was established; those penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364847