https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51346 Excise valuation demands require reliable, corroborative evidence of under-valuation or clandestine realisation of extra consideration; suspicion, a solitary price slip, or retracted statements are insufficient. The CEGAT majority found that the alleged dummy unit and routing of clearances through sale proceeds of sawn timber were not proved on the record, and that the Revenue had not established under-valuation for the bulk of dealers. While some material supported invocation of the extended period for certain consignments, the demand and penalties could not stand in the form confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and the impugned adjudication was set aside. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:57:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51346 Excise valuation demands require reliable, corroborative evidence of under-valuation or clandestine realisation of extra consideration; suspicion, a solitary price slip, or retracted statements are insufficient. The CEGAT majority found that the alleged dummy unit and routing of clearances through sale proceeds of sawn timber were not proved on the record, and that the Revenue had not established under-valuation for the bulk of dealers. While some material supported invocation of the extended period for certain consignments, the demand and penalties could not stand in the form confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and the impugned adjudication was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51346