https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244632 The Tribunal ruled that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the steel items were used in the fabrication of capital goods, requiring a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs for further proceedings. The burden of proof was held to be on the appellant, who lacked concrete evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal considered the limitation period issue as a mixed question of facts and law, necessitating additional examination. Additionally, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs within four weeks for the appeal hearing, highlighting the importance of supporting claims with evidence in legal proceedings. en-us Tue, 24 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244632 The Tribunal ruled that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the steel items were used in the fabrication of capital goods, requiring a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs for further proceedings. The burden of proof was held to be on the appellant, who lacked concrete evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal considered the limitation period issue as a mixed question of facts and law, necessitating additional examination. Additionally, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs within four weeks for the appeal hearing, highlighting the importance of supporting claims with evidence in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244632