https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380854 Concurrent findings on undervaluation and related excise liability were upheld because the Department failed to produce concrete, corroborative evidence that differential amounts formed part of the rig price, that the invoice model declaration was false to the extent alleged, or that there had been clandestine manufacture or removal of spares and optional items. The Court reiterated that perversity exists only where a finding is unsupported by evidence or no reasonable person could reach it, and that an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act lies only on a substantial question of law. The findings were therefore not shown to be perverse and no interference was warranted. en-us Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 May 2019 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380854 Concurrent findings on undervaluation and related excise liability were upheld because the Department failed to produce concrete, corroborative evidence that differential amounts formed part of the rig price, that the invoice model declaration was false to the extent alleged, or that there had been clandestine manufacture or removal of spares and optional items. The Court reiterated that perversity exists only where a finding is unsupported by evidence or no reasonable person could reach it, and that an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act lies only on a substantial question of law. The findings were therefore not shown to be perverse and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380854