https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94315 The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order dropping the demand of duty and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of goods and under-valuation of halogen lamp capsules. The Revenue failed to prove the charges as discrepancies in production figures were explained by the respondents as rejected items returned by buyers and lower prices of capsules were justified as selling rejected goods after proper assessment. The Commissioner's detailed reasoning supported the respondents, concluding that the Revenue did not establish the allegations. The judgment upheld the Commissioner's order due to the lack of substantiated evidence by the Revenue. en-us Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:49:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94315 The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order dropping the demand of duty and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of goods and under-valuation of halogen lamp capsules. The Revenue failed to prove the charges as discrepancies in production figures were explained by the respondents as rejected items returned by buyers and lower prices of capsules were justified as selling rejected goods after proper assessment. The Commissioner's detailed reasoning supported the respondents, concluding that the Revenue did not establish the allegations. The judgment upheld the Commissioner's order due to the lack of substantiated evidence by the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94315