https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92732 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the Revenue failed to prove under-valuation of carpets and that the demand for duty was baseless. Additionally, the tribunal held that the conversion of carpets into rugs and shaping charges did not amount to manufacturing, thus rejecting the duty demands on these activities. As there was no legal basis for the duty demands, the tribunal also concluded that penalties were unjustified. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside due to the lack of evidence supporting the duty demands. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:42:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92732 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the Revenue failed to prove under-valuation of carpets and that the demand for duty was baseless. Additionally, the tribunal held that the conversion of carpets into rugs and shaping charges did not amount to manufacturing, thus rejecting the duty demands on these activities. As there was no legal basis for the duty demands, the tribunal also concluded that penalties were unjustified. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside due to the lack of evidence supporting the duty demands. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92732