https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368911 A demand denying area-based exemption and refund could not stand where the Revenue relied mainly on a third-party investigation at suppliers' end, while contemporaneous records showed truck movement through check posts, entry and exit confirmations, departmental and other verifications, and ongoing manufacturing activity. On that record, the alleged non-receipt of inputs and absence of manufacture was not established. The principle applied was that excise findings must rest on the totality of evidence, and a presumption unsupported by concrete material from the assessee's side is insufficient to dislodge entitlement to exemption. The appellant was therefore held entitled to Notification No. 56/2002-CE and consequential refund relief. en-us Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368911 A demand denying area-based exemption and refund could not stand where the Revenue relied mainly on a third-party investigation at suppliers' end, while contemporaneous records showed truck movement through check posts, entry and exit confirmations, departmental and other verifications, and ongoing manufacturing activity. On that record, the alleged non-receipt of inputs and absence of manufacture was not established. The principle applied was that excise findings must rest on the totality of evidence, and a presumption unsupported by concrete material from the assessee's side is insufficient to dislodge entitlement to exemption. The appellant was therefore held entitled to Notification No. 56/2002-CE and consequential refund relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368911