https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380142 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s RC, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It held that the goods are accessories, not parts, and should be valued under Section 4. The demands for duty on job work goods and cenvat credit were not substantiated by evidence, and the confiscation of goods was unjustified. The decision underscores the importance of proper classification and valuation in excise matters and the necessity of concrete evidence for claims of clandestine removal. en-us Mon, 13 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380142 The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s RC, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It held that the goods are accessories, not parts, and should be valued under Section 4. The demands for duty on job work goods and cenvat credit were not substantiated by evidence, and the confiscation of goods was unjustified. The decision underscores the importance of proper classification and valuation in excise matters and the necessity of concrete evidence for claims of clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380142