did not give up its stand referred above, then, from this material neither mis-declaration nor suppression could have been inferred. All the more, when the records of the assessee were produced. There were audits. The objection raised by the audit and with regard to method of valuation also resulted in a show cause notice limited to two issues, namely, value of shrinkages not included in the assessable value and the non addition of 2 to 10% of notional amount in the assessable value. If this was the course adopted by the Revenue while scrutinizing and verifying the records and for purpose of assessment, then, the Tribunal rightly concluded that nothing prevented the Revenue from questioning the stand of the assessee. If the Ujagar formula was inapplicable or was misapplied to the given facts and circumstances, then, the revenue could have proceeded and in accordance with law. If it has omitted to do it, then, it cannot turn around and allege suppression or mis declaration on the part of the assessee. This is a finding of fact emerging from the materials produced on record. If the allegations in the show cause notice are held as not established or proved, then, we do not see how such conclusion can be inferred by us. We cannot term it as perverse or vitiated by any error or law apparent on the face of the record. The adjudication by the Tribunal in the
