https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252885 The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2008 issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ahmedabad. The demand of duty based on investigations and Panchnama was contested, with the adjudicating authority confirming a partial demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the confirmed demand. The Revenue's appeal before CESTAT was dismissed, as the case had been previously decided in favor of the appellant. Allegations of clandestine manufacturing were refuted, and the statements recorded were deemed unreliable. The bench rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision to set aside the demands. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:52:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252885 The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2008 issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ahmedabad. The demand of duty based on investigations and Panchnama was contested, with the adjudicating authority confirming a partial demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the confirmed demand. The Revenue's appeal before CESTAT was dismissed, as the case had been previously decided in favor of the appellant. Allegations of clandestine manufacturing were refuted, and the statements recorded were deemed unreliable. The bench rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision to set aside the demands. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252885