https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249279 The appeal was allowed as the court found that the appellant's declaration included returned goods in the stock of inputs, contrary to the audit report. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence and logical basis for the Commissioner's conclusions, highlighting the necessity to follow legal procedures for handling returned goods. The court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of factual verification and adherence to legal procedures, ensuring that any benefit regarding duty liability should go to the assessee in the absence of concrete evidence. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249279 The appeal was allowed as the court found that the appellant's declaration included returned goods in the stock of inputs, contrary to the audit report. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence and logical basis for the Commissioner's conclusions, highlighting the necessity to follow legal procedures for handling returned goods. The court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of factual verification and adherence to legal procedures, ensuring that any benefit regarding duty liability should go to the assessee in the absence of concrete evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249279