https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120088 The case involved a Revenue appeal against dropped proceedings concerning shortage of goods, suppression of facts, and duty evasion. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to confirm the demands and noted the lack of proof for invoking the extended period for willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal upheld the dropping of demands due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the Revenue's obligation to establish allegations of suppression with evidence and the absence of proof supporting clandestine removal. en-us Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:38:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120088 The case involved a Revenue appeal against dropped proceedings concerning shortage of goods, suppression of facts, and duty evasion. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to confirm the demands and noted the lack of proof for invoking the extended period for willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal upheld the dropping of demands due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the Revenue's obligation to establish allegations of suppression with evidence and the absence of proof supporting clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120088