https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198902 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI determined that the appellant, involved in computer parts, was a manufacturer, not a trader, based on evidence including manipulated invoices and buyer statements confirming computer purchases. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the appellant owed Rs. 15,78,945.30 in excise duty, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their trader status and did not cross-examine buyers. The appeal was dismissed, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence in clarifying business activities to prevent tax disputes and ensure regulatory compliance. en-us Tue, 30 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198902 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI determined that the appellant, involved in computer parts, was a manufacturer, not a trader, based on evidence including manipulated invoices and buyer statements confirming computer purchases. The Tribunal upheld the decision that the appellant owed Rs. 15,78,945.30 in excise duty, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their trader status and did not cross-examine buyers. The appeal was dismissed, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence in clarifying business activities to prevent tax disputes and ensure regulatory compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198902