https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185936 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order demanding Central Excise duty from the plywood manufacturer, citing lack of concrete evidence to support the claim that 2 sq. mtrs. of face veneer were necessary for producing 1 sq. mtr. of plywood. The Tribunal found the reliance on the statement of the Appellant's Accountant insufficient, as no further verification or technical analysis was conducted to validate the department's calculation. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant, with the decision announced on 27/5/2015, potentially entitling the Appellant to consequential relief. en-us Wed, 27 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2016 08:52:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185936 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order demanding Central Excise duty from the plywood manufacturer, citing lack of concrete evidence to support the claim that 2 sq. mtrs. of face veneer were necessary for producing 1 sq. mtr. of plywood. The Tribunal found the reliance on the statement of the Appellant's Accountant insufficient, as no further verification or technical analysis was conducted to validate the department's calculation. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant, with the decision announced on 27/5/2015, potentially entitling the Appellant to consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185936