https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109171 A claimed differential excise duty benefit could not be denied merely because the assessee did not independently prove that the chassis had suffered duty. The department relied on gate passes and failed to investigate the suppliers' records or produce evidence of non-payment at the supplier end. The burden to establish that duty had not been paid lay on the department, and that burden was not discharged. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the assessee remained entitled to the notified duty treatment. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:11:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109171 A claimed differential excise duty benefit could not be denied merely because the assessee did not independently prove that the chassis had suffered duty. The department relied on gate passes and failed to investigate the suppliers' records or produce evidence of non-payment at the supplier end. The burden to establish that duty had not been paid lay on the department, and that burden was not discharged. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the assessee remained entitled to the notified duty treatment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109171