https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251817 The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant, a petroleum products manufacturer, was directed to submit required documents within two months for verification by excise authorities. The responsibility to prove intended usage was placed on the buyer for supplies to certain units, while evidence of compliance was required for the appellant's own depots. The Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance and the allocation of responsibility between the supplier and buyer in establishing end-use criteria for concessional duty rates. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:51:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251817 The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant, a petroleum products manufacturer, was directed to submit required documents within two months for verification by excise authorities. The responsibility to prove intended usage was placed on the buyer for supplies to certain units, while evidence of compliance was required for the appellant's own depots. The Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance and the allocation of responsibility between the supplier and buyer in establishing end-use criteria for concessional duty rates. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251817