https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353632 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in a case concerning duty demand on goods clearance without payment. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the destruction of returned goods, violating Central Excise Rules. Despite claiming goods' perishable nature, insufficient proof led to the rejection of the appeal. The burden of proof shifted to the appellant per legal precedent, emphasizing compliance with procedures. The importance of evidence, adherence to rules, and proper documentation was highlighted, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 08:15:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353632 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in a case concerning duty demand on goods clearance without payment. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the destruction of returned goods, violating Central Excise Rules. Despite claiming goods' perishable nature, insufficient proof led to the rejection of the appeal. The burden of proof shifted to the appellant per legal precedent, emphasizing compliance with procedures. The importance of evidence, adherence to rules, and proper documentation was highlighted, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353632