https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376494 The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's demand for duty recovery, citing the appellant's admission of balance duty payment as proof of suppression of facts. The appellant's challenges to the invocation of the extended recovery period were dismissed, with the Tribunal emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting their claims and the discrepancy in closing stock values. The appeal was rejected due to the appellant's failure to substantiate their arguments and the acknowledgment of non-payment of duty, leading to the liability for duty recovery. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2019 06:45:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376494 The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's demand for duty recovery, citing the appellant's admission of balance duty payment as proof of suppression of facts. The appellant's challenges to the invocation of the extended recovery period were dismissed, with the Tribunal emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting their claims and the discrepancy in closing stock values. The appeal was rejected due to the appellant's failure to substantiate their arguments and the acknowledgment of non-payment of duty, leading to the liability for duty recovery. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376494