https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107631 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations of discrepancies in stock maintenance and duty payment. The lack of concrete evidence, inconsistencies in stock audits, and unreliable employee statements led to the decision to reject the duty demand and penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The tribunal emphasized the importance of physical stock verification and adherence to exemption conditions, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the insufficiency of evidence presented. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:24:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107631 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations of discrepancies in stock maintenance and duty payment. The lack of concrete evidence, inconsistencies in stock audits, and unreliable employee statements led to the decision to reject the duty demand and penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The tribunal emphasized the importance of physical stock verification and adherence to exemption conditions, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the insufficiency of evidence presented. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107631