https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341875 The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Department's findings in the case where the appellant failed to substantiate trading activities post-exceeding the exemption limit, leading to allegations of duty evasion. Despite the appellant's claims of engaging in both manufacturing and trading, discrepancies in documentation and lack of evidence weakened their defense. The Department's establishment of a prima facie case through seized records shifted the burden of proof to the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal due to suppressed production and SSI limit crossing in 2005-06. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341875 The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Department's findings in the case where the appellant failed to substantiate trading activities post-exceeding the exemption limit, leading to allegations of duty evasion. Despite the appellant's claims of engaging in both manufacturing and trading, discrepancies in documentation and lack of evidence weakened their defense. The Department's establishment of a prima facie case through seized records shifted the burden of proof to the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal due to suppressed production and SSI limit crossing in 2005-06. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341875