https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357988 The Commissioner rejected the Revenue's claim that the product was refined vegetable oil due to insufficient evidence and failure to establish excisability. The Revenue did not meet the burden of proof, lacking specific testing and evidence. Technical reports and laboratory tests supported the appellant's position that they did not manufacture refined vegetable oil. The Commissioner emphasized the Revenue's failure to verify the manufacturing process or demonstrate compliance with standards, leading to the rejection of duty demands and penalties imposed on the appellant. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2018 06:37:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357988 The Commissioner rejected the Revenue's claim that the product was refined vegetable oil due to insufficient evidence and failure to establish excisability. The Revenue did not meet the burden of proof, lacking specific testing and evidence. Technical reports and laboratory tests supported the appellant's position that they did not manufacture refined vegetable oil. The Commissioner emphasized the Revenue's failure to verify the manufacturing process or demonstrate compliance with standards, leading to the rejection of duty demands and penalties imposed on the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357988