https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334388 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of duty of Rs. 1,61,129 on unbranded tobacco for the period March 2005 to March 2007, along with the mandatory equal penalty, as it found insufficient grounds to prove willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden lies on the Revenue to establish willful misstatement and highlighted that mere non-payment of duties does not automatically indicate collusion or suppression of facts, referencing relevant judicial precedents. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334388 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of duty of Rs. 1,61,129 on unbranded tobacco for the period March 2005 to March 2007, along with the mandatory equal penalty, as it found insufficient grounds to prove willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden lies on the Revenue to establish willful misstatement and highlighted that mere non-payment of duties does not automatically indicate collusion or suppression of facts, referencing relevant judicial precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334388