https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125359 The appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed. The appellant's arguments regarding shortage of kraft paper and clandestine removal of goods were not accepted, as the evidence, including the statement of Shri Bharat Patel and possession of questionable documents, supported the findings of the authorities. The court upheld the decision based on the admissibility of evidence under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the failure of the appellant to provide substantial evidence to counter the allegations. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:31:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125359 The appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed. The appellant's arguments regarding shortage of kraft paper and clandestine removal of goods were not accepted, as the evidence, including the statement of Shri Bharat Patel and possession of questionable documents, supported the findings of the authorities. The court upheld the decision based on the admissibility of evidence under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the failure of the appellant to provide substantial evidence to counter the allegations. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125359