https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368669 The tribunal held that the department failed to prove the appellant's manufacturing of scaffoldings/propping equipment, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal. Insufficient evidence led to the dismissal of the excise duty demand, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof in establishing liability. The tribunal criticized the investigation's deficiencies and reliance on assumptions, highlighting the appellant's role as a supplier rather than a manufacturer. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Oct 2018 09:48:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368669 The tribunal held that the department failed to prove the appellant's manufacturing of scaffoldings/propping equipment, setting aside the order and allowing the appeal. Insufficient evidence led to the dismissal of the excise duty demand, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof in establishing liability. The tribunal criticized the investigation's deficiencies and reliance on assumptions, highlighting the appellant's role as a supplier rather than a manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368669