https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89633 Statutory excise records accepted by the department shifted the burden to revenue to rebut the assessee's claim with affirmative evidence, and mere assumption or presumption was insufficient to sustain a demand or penalty. Because the assessee had licences and cleared Solvent C-IX under the prescribed Chapter X procedure, with RT-11 returns, RG-16 records and AR-3/warehousing documents scrutinised and accepted, the department could not prove misuse, diversion, wilful misstatement or suppression of material facts. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the extended period was held inapplicable. en-us Fri, 06 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:58:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89633 Statutory excise records accepted by the department shifted the burden to revenue to rebut the assessee's claim with affirmative evidence, and mere assumption or presumption was insufficient to sustain a demand or penalty. Because the assessee had licences and cleared Solvent C-IX under the prescribed Chapter X procedure, with RT-11 returns, RG-16 records and AR-3/warehousing documents scrutinised and accepted, the department could not prove misuse, diversion, wilful misstatement or suppression of material facts. The demand and penalty were set aside, and the extended period was held inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89633