https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288536 Where valuation was based on price rather than pack quantity, an alleged excess of 32 gms. in containers marked as 30 gms. did not by itself justify a duty demand because the sale price and actual duty liability were unchanged. The theory that exact packing would have enabled more packs and greater revenue was treated as hypothetical and unsupported. As the underlying duty demand failed, the penalty also fell away because it depended on a valid duty liability. The Department's cross-objection therefore had no merit, and the duty demand and penalty were annulled. en-us Wed, 06 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:16:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288536 Where valuation was based on price rather than pack quantity, an alleged excess of 32 gms. in containers marked as 30 gms. did not by itself justify a duty demand because the sale price and actual duty liability were unchanged. The theory that exact packing would have enabled more packs and greater revenue was treated as hypothetical and unsupported. As the underlying duty demand failed, the penalty also fell away because it depended on a valid duty liability. The Department's cross-objection therefore had no merit, and the duty demand and penalty were annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288536