https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91321 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The appellant successfully argued that the tyres were correctly declared for animal drawn vehicles or hand carts, not for autorickshaws, as alleged by the department. The court found the department's case lacking in evidence, with the tyre manufacturer confirming the tyres were for wheel barrows with limited speed, not intended for autorickshaws. The misdeclaration claim was weakened by the department's prior knowledge of the tyre size, leading to the failure of the charge in the notice. en-us Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:46:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91321 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The appellant successfully argued that the tyres were correctly declared for animal drawn vehicles or hand carts, not for autorickshaws, as alleged by the department. The court found the department's case lacking in evidence, with the tyre manufacturer confirming the tyres were for wheel barrows with limited speed, not intended for autorickshaws. The misdeclaration claim was weakened by the department's prior knowledge of the tyre size, leading to the failure of the charge in the notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91321