https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113768 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order. It emphasized the lack of evidence supporting computer manufacturing by Compu Shop, highlighting the department's failure to substantiate the claim. The burden of proof was crucial, and the appellant's defense against manufacturing was accepted due to the absence of evidence. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Compu Shop, underscoring the significance of evidence and burden of proof in the case. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2012 13:11:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113768 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order. It emphasized the lack of evidence supporting computer manufacturing by Compu Shop, highlighting the department's failure to substantiate the claim. The burden of proof was crucial, and the appellant's defense against manufacturing was accepted due to the absence of evidence. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Compu Shop, underscoring the significance of evidence and burden of proof in the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113768