https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30712 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the requirement for goods to be identical, not just similar, for valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act. It held that the burden of proof for undervaluation rests on the Revenue, which failed to provide sufficient evidence of contemporaneous imports to support its claim. Without such evidence, the transaction value cannot be rejected. The court stressed the importance of considering contemporaneous imports for valuation, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30712 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the requirement for goods to be identical, not just similar, for valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act. It held that the burden of proof for undervaluation rests on the Revenue, which failed to provide sufficient evidence of contemporaneous imports to support its claim. Without such evidence, the transaction value cannot be rejected. The court stressed the importance of considering contemporaneous imports for valuation, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30712