https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72068 Under T.I. 18(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 125/75-C.E., the Tribunal held that the processor was not required, as a matter of initial burden, to prove that base yarn had already suffered duty; the notification only reduced the additional duty component and did not alter the basic duty framework. The assessee also supported its claim with gate passes and supplier letters showing procurement from the open market or identifiable sources, while the Department failed to verify or establish non-payment of duty. The demand for differential duty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2011 12:41:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72068 Under T.I. 18(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 125/75-C.E., the Tribunal held that the processor was not required, as a matter of initial burden, to prove that base yarn had already suffered duty; the notification only reduced the additional duty component and did not alter the basic duty framework. The assessee also supported its claim with gate passes and supplier letters showing procurement from the open market or identifiable sources, while the Department failed to verify or establish non-payment of duty. The demand for differential duty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72068