https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241730 The case involved appeals regarding duty demands and penalties on broken PCC Poles. The appellant, a PCC Pole manufacturer, was unable to provide documentary evidence of breakage as requested by the jurisdictional Superintendent. The Tribunal ruled that goods consumed during testing are not excisable, thus no duty liability could be imposed. The allegation of clandestine removal was rejected due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the Revenue's burden of proof. The impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellant. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:11:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241730 The case involved appeals regarding duty demands and penalties on broken PCC Poles. The appellant, a PCC Pole manufacturer, was unable to provide documentary evidence of breakage as requested by the jurisdictional Superintendent. The Tribunal ruled that goods consumed during testing are not excisable, thus no duty liability could be imposed. The allegation of clandestine removal was rejected due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the Revenue's burden of proof. The impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241730