https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271217 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order demanding duty, penalty, and interest from the appellant, a manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco. The Tribunal found the Revenue's case lacking in substantiated evidence, relying on presumptions and assumptions regarding alleged clandestine removal of tobacco. It emphasized the importance of tangible evidence and proper verification in excise duty cases, concluding that the demand was time-barred due to the Revenue's failure to prove clandestine removal and verify the explained shortages. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 May 2016 15:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271217 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order demanding duty, penalty, and interest from the appellant, a manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco. The Tribunal found the Revenue's case lacking in substantiated evidence, relying on presumptions and assumptions regarding alleged clandestine removal of tobacco. It emphasized the importance of tangible evidence and proper verification in excise duty cases, concluding that the demand was time-barred due to the Revenue's failure to prove clandestine removal and verify the explained shortages. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271217