https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353571 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case involved questions regarding suppressed production, burden of proof, and the validity of the CESTAT decision. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of clandestine activities, emphasizing the importance of substantial proof in such cases. Due to the lack of convincing evidence presented by the department, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the appeal. en-us Tue, 02 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353571 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case involved questions regarding suppressed production, burden of proof, and the validity of the CESTAT decision. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of clandestine activities, emphasizing the importance of substantial proof in such cases. Due to the lack of convincing evidence presented by the department, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353571