https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336346 The appellate tribunal set aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The tribunal found that the manufacturer was not liable for central excise duty as the department failed to prove that the brand name "CUSA" was affixed on the gearboxes at the factory. The manufacturer successfully availed the benefit of exemption under notification 175/1986-CE, as there was no evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof regarding the alleged suppression of facts to evade duty was not met by the department, leading to the favorable outcome for the manufacturer. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336346 The appellate tribunal set aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The tribunal found that the manufacturer was not liable for central excise duty as the department failed to prove that the brand name "CUSA" was affixed on the gearboxes at the factory. The manufacturer successfully availed the benefit of exemption under notification 175/1986-CE, as there was no evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof regarding the alleged suppression of facts to evade duty was not met by the department, leading to the favorable outcome for the manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336346