https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160809 The Tribunal found that while the appellant had control over the premises' lock & key, there was insufficient evidence to support charges of suppression regarding the storage tanks of the impugned goods for the year 2005-2006. Emphasizing the need for substantial evidence in adjudication under the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal noted that mere possession of the lock & key was not enough to establish guilt. The Tribunal directed a waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal process and kept the matter open for additional arguments from both parties, refraining from making a definitive decision based on assumptions and suspicions. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:32:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160809 The Tribunal found that while the appellant had control over the premises' lock & key, there was insufficient evidence to support charges of suppression regarding the storage tanks of the impugned goods for the year 2005-2006. Emphasizing the need for substantial evidence in adjudication under the Central Excise Act, the Tribunal noted that mere possession of the lock & key was not enough to establish guilt. The Tribunal directed a waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal process and kept the matter open for additional arguments from both parties, refraining from making a definitive decision based on assumptions and suspicions. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160809