https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448924 Where tariff entries in the Central Excise Tariff were not aligned with the HSN, classification had to be determined from the tariff itself, and ball point pen ink was treated as writing ink under sub-heading 3215.10 rather than other ink under 3215.90; the related undervaluation-based duty demand therefore failed. Allegations of clandestine removal also failed because the Revenue relied on an unreliable comparison of accounts without corroboration from dispatch records, transport documents, sale proceeds, or buyer evidence. With the substantive duty demands unsustainable, the penalties likewise had no independent basis and could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2024 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448924 Where tariff entries in the Central Excise Tariff were not aligned with the HSN, classification had to be determined from the tariff itself, and ball point pen ink was treated as writing ink under sub-heading 3215.10 rather than other ink under 3215.90; the related undervaluation-based duty demand therefore failed. Allegations of clandestine removal also failed because the Revenue relied on an unreliable comparison of accounts without corroboration from dispatch records, transport documents, sale proceeds, or buyer evidence. With the substantive duty demands unsustainable, the penalties likewise had no independent basis and could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448924