https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387872 In central excise undervaluation cases, generalized extrapolation based on third-party records and statements is insufficient; assessable value must be determined transaction-wise on legally sustainable evidence, so the demand required remand for re-quantification. Recovery from a successor is confined to confirmed arrears existing at the time of transfer, and a fresh demand for unconfirmed predecessor liability cannot be fastened on the successor or on legal heirs where the claim had not crystallized before death. Allegations of clandestine removal require cogent proof of manufacture, clearance, and receipt of consideration; on the available record, that charge also warranted reconsideration rather than final confirmation. en-us Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 06:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387872 In central excise undervaluation cases, generalized extrapolation based on third-party records and statements is insufficient; assessable value must be determined transaction-wise on legally sustainable evidence, so the demand required remand for re-quantification. Recovery from a successor is confined to confirmed arrears existing at the time of transfer, and a fresh demand for unconfirmed predecessor liability cannot be fastened on the successor or on legal heirs where the claim had not crystallized before death. Allegations of clandestine removal require cogent proof of manufacture, clearance, and receipt of consideration; on the available record, that charge also warranted reconsideration rather than final confirmation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387872