https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187329 Central excise duty on alleged scrap generation failed because the revenue did not produce clear and clinching evidence that the scrap arose from mechanical working or manufacturing activity rather than construction materials. A general reference to annexures was insufficient to establish excisability, and the burden of proof was not discharged. The extended period of limitation and consequential penalties also could not be sustained because there was no adequate proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or clandestine removal. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:30:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187329 Central excise duty on alleged scrap generation failed because the revenue did not produce clear and clinching evidence that the scrap arose from mechanical working or manufacturing activity rather than construction materials. A general reference to annexures was insufficient to establish excisability, and the burden of proof was not discharged. The extended period of limitation and consequential penalties also could not be sustained because there was no adequate proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or clandestine removal. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187329