https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165688 The Board found that the destroyed cigarettes were not excisable goods and therefore not liable for excise duty. It emphasized the importance of consistent application of rules and burden of proof in establishing liability for duty and penalties. The ruling favored the appellants, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the penalty imposed by the Collector, ultimately allowing the appeal against the penalty. en-us Sun, 31 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:28:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165688 The Board found that the destroyed cigarettes were not excisable goods and therefore not liable for excise duty. It emphasized the importance of consistent application of rules and burden of proof in establishing liability for duty and penalties. The ruling favored the appellants, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the penalty imposed by the Collector, ultimately allowing the appeal against the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 31 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165688