https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89516 The Tribunal remanded the case for further adjudication, emphasizing the need for a detailed comparison of reported purchases and alleged shortages in aerated water production. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough investigations and evidence in resolving duty demand disputes, criticizing the lower authority for ignoring evidence of dilution by bottlers and discrepancies in production figures. The dismissal of cross-appeals was deemed misconceived, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive correlation exercise to verify reported purchases and address production discrepancies effectively. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:18:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89516 The Tribunal remanded the case for further adjudication, emphasizing the need for a detailed comparison of reported purchases and alleged shortages in aerated water production. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough investigations and evidence in resolving duty demand disputes, criticizing the lower authority for ignoring evidence of dilution by bottlers and discrepancies in production figures. The dismissal of cross-appeals was deemed misconceived, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive correlation exercise to verify reported purchases and address production discrepancies effectively. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89516