https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41232 Deletion of Rule 10 and simultaneous insertion of Section 11-A were treated as a continuity of the same excise recovery machinery, so pending short-levy proceedings did not lapse. Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules was held to be a valid method of valuation because it uses comparable goods with reasonable adjustments to reach the nearest ascertainable equivalent of normal price, and was not inconsistent with Section 4(1)(b). Penalty proceedings, however, could not be sustained on the admitted facts where the price list had been filed in the prescribed form and the notice disclosed only an alleged valuation error; the penalty portion of the notice was therefore severable and quashed. en-us Fri, 30 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 May 2010 15:03:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41232 Deletion of Rule 10 and simultaneous insertion of Section 11-A were treated as a continuity of the same excise recovery machinery, so pending short-levy proceedings did not lapse. Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules was held to be a valid method of valuation because it uses comparable goods with reasonable adjustments to reach the nearest ascertainable equivalent of normal price, and was not inconsistent with Section 4(1)(b). Penalty proceedings, however, could not be sustained on the admitted facts where the price list had been filed in the prescribed form and the notice disclosed only an alleged valuation error; the penalty portion of the notice was therefore severable and quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41232